Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (LYMINGTON) BILL

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the British Transport Commission (to be proceeded with under Section 7 of the Act)," presented by Mr. McNeil; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Dock Labour Reforms

Mr. J. R. Bevins: asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to make a statement on dock labour reforms throughout the country following his consultations with interested parties.

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement as to action recently taken or pending in order to implement recommendations of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Unofficial Stoppages in the London Docks, particularly in reference to establishing good relationships between all parties and providing improved amenities for workers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee): My consultations with the National Joint Council for the port transport industry are not yet completed.

Mr. Bevins: Is it not a fact that one of the principal recommendations of the Leggett Committee was that the Communist elements, who are only concerned with disrupting the ports of this country, should be dismissed from the industry, and as there is agreement between the employers and the trade unions on that recommendation, why is the hon. Gentleman not prepared to act?

Mr. Lee: I do not think that it is the function of the Government to dismiss people from the port industry.

Pottery Industry (Dust Hazards)

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give any information as to new methods of combating dangerous dust hazards in the pottery industry, especially in the tile industry; and what action he is taking to encourage their use.

Mr. Lee: New or improved methods in regard to a wide variety of matters have been developed and are being increasingly applied in consultation with the factory department. They include new and better methods of rendering floors impervious and of cleaning them, and improvements in the design of vacuum cleaning appliances; improved transport of ground flint and clay dust: a new flint calcining process which avoids some dusty operations; and as regards tile works in particular, improvements in the arrangements for dust storage and supply and a newly developed process for preparing clay dust.

Dr. Stross: I thank my hon. Friend for the information he has given, but is he aware that two firms are using methods on the lines he himself has suggested, as the result of which it is virtually impossible for silicosis to affect workers in the tile-making industry, and will he do all that he can to see that his inspectors urge other firms to use these methods?

Mr. Lee: I do not know whether the methods used by the two firms my hon. Friend has mentioned are known to us. I will make inquiries and see what I can do to help him.

Mr. McCorquodale: Can the hon. Gentleman say how far these improved


methods to which he has referred are being used? I can assure him that if he needs assistance from this House in applying these methods he will get it in full measure.

Mr. Lee: I am quite sure that that is so. I am not quite certain which are the two firms my hon. Friend has mentioned, but I will look into the matter.

Dr. Stross: Is my hon. Friend not aware that in the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories these firms are specifically mentioned, although, of course, not by name, as having brought forward these specific ways of handling tile dust so that there is no risk at all to the worker?

Retirement Age

Mr. Digby: asked the Minister of Labour if he is yet able to make a statement about the negotiations to encourage Government Departments and the nationalised industries to retain their employees after the age of 65 years if they are fit and anxious to continue at work.

Mr. Lee: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to a similar Question on 5th June.

Mr. Digby: Will the Minister treat this as a matter of urgency as, for example, in the railway industry people are still being discharged against their will on reaching the age of 65?

Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir. We are very concerned about it. We have brought our policy to the attention of the industries concerned, and we will do everything that we can to see that it is carried out.

Captain Duncan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his original announcement was made in April, that it is now nearly the end of July and the Government have not yet made up their minds? Meanwhile, men who are reaching 65 are still being dismissed from the Service Departments. Will he look into this matter?

Mr. Lee: It is not true to say that the Government have not made up their minds. Our policy is well known, and we have done what we can. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that very necessary re-arrangements have to be made in industries to do this. We cannot

expect people to alter their whole policy and make other arrangements in a short space of time when for many years they have been functioning on a very different basis.

Blind Persons (Report)

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to give effect to the recommendations of the Report of the Working Party on the Employment of Blind Persons.

Mr. Lee: The recommendations of the Report of the Working Party on the Employment of Blind Persons cover a wide range of topics and involve many considerations. These are at present being discussed with Government Departments and the various other interests concerned in the welfare and employment of the blind, and the steps eventually taken will depend to some extent on the result of these discussions.

Mr. Morley: Is my hon. Friend aware that many blind persons found employment comparatively easily during the war and in the years immediately following the war, but are finding it very difficult to obtain employment now? Could he do something to help them?

Mr. Lee: We are in consultation with those people who co-ordinate the activities of blind people. I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right in believing that there is any large increase in the numbers unemployed. We will certainly look into it and help in any way we can.

Trade Union Membership

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he has taken to make known to employers the terms of paragraph 4 of Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Mr. Lee: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December, 1948, was given full publicity in a Command Paper (No. 7662) issued in early 1949.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is a firm known as D. C. Thomson, of Dundee, Glasgow and Salford, who have had a closed shop for the last 25 years and do not employ members of trade unions? People who


are employed there must sign a declaration not to belong to a trade union, and in view of the international decision about human rights, what is the Minister prepared to do with this firm?

Mr. Lee: I do not know that we have the power to do anything, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is deplorable that in 1951 any firm should have to adopt such disgusting tactics.

Mr. McCorquodale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the Minister of Labour was winding up the debate on the Hants-Dorset bus dispute the other evening, he showed himself at variance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Mr. Lee: I do not at all accept that.

Mr. Henry Strauss: If the Minister decides to give further publicity to the provision mentioned in the Question, will he at the same time give equal publicity to the provision of paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the same Universal Declaration, that no one may be compelled to belong to an association?

Mr. Lee: I do not know if that includes the trade union that caters for solicitors and lawyers.

Mr. Hardy: Is my hon. friend aware that at the United Nations on 10th December it was recommended for international acceptance that everyone had the right to form a trade union for the protection of his or her own interests?

Mr. Lee: I quite accept that.

Ex-Regular Officers

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent difficulty still exists in finding employment for retired ex-Regular officers of all three Services; and whether, in view of the manpower shortage, he proposes to take any special steps to absorb them.

Mr. Lee: Although the number of unemployed ex-Regular officers is smaller than at the beginning of the year, it remains difficult to find suitable employment for those who have no professional or technical qualifications, particularly when they have settled in parts of the country where few administrative or executive posts are available. Special appeals have been and will continue to

be made to employers to consider sympathetically the claims of ex-Regular officers and to notify suitable vacancies to my appointments offices.
I would refer the hon. Member to the replies to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) on 6th July, 1950, and to the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) on 26th October, 1950.

Mr. Gammans: Can the Minister say how many Regular officers are on the books of the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Lee: The number of unemployed ex-officers registered at the appointments office fell from 1,703 in January of this year to 1,302 this month, and placings increased from 129 during the three months ending 16th April to 160 during the three months ending 16th July.

Brigadier Head: Does the Minister think that adequate publicity has been given to the much improved conditions which now obtain for ex-Regular officers who rejoin the Services?

Mr. Lee: I should have thought that those conditions were pretty well-known to ex-Regular officers, but I will consult my right hon. Friend at the War Office and see what can be done.

Remploy Factory, Wallsend

Mr. John McKay: asked the Minister of Labour the hours of work and the wages paid to the workers in the Remploy Factory at Wallsend; and what is the percentage of output expected from these disabled men compared with workers in the ordinary factories.

Mr. Lee: The hours of work at the Wallsend Remploy Factory are 44 per week and the wages of adult severely disabled workers range from £4 8s. 0d. to £5 10s. 0d. per week. No specific output is laid down for these workers but, while it is Remploy's policy not to make unreasonable demands of them, each is expected to make his maximum contribution to production within the limits of his disability.

Mr. McKay: Can the Minister say how the hours, wages and conditions of work are regulated, and by whom?

Mr. Lee: Not without notice.

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Labour is he is aware that there is dissatisfaction in the Remploy Factory at Wallsend about the pressure put upon the men to produce a given output regardless of their varied disabilities and skill; and if he will have inquiries made and a report given to the hon. Member for Wallsend.

Mr. Lee: I have no knowledge of any dissatisfaction among the workers at Wallsend Remploy Factory on the ground that pressure is being put upon them to produce more than their disabilities allow. From inquiries made, I find that two workers complained of the exhibition of a chart illustrating progress of work in each section of the factory intended to enlist their active interest in production, but I understand that trade union representatives who saw it were satisfied with its purpose.

Mr. McKay: I asked whether an investigation could be made and a report given. Can that be done?

Mr. Lee: As I pointed out to my hon. Friend, the charge against which some complaint is made has been shown to the trade union people who represent the workers concerned, and they find no cause for complaint of any sort.

Hours of Work

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Labour if he will introduce legislation to control the hours of work in industry.

Mr. Lee: I see no necessity for introducing further legislation on this matter.

Mr. Remnant: May it be assumed from that reply that the hon. Gentleman has no aversion whatever to firms working five days a week, and if that be so, can he explain why traders who work five days a week are being asked to open on Saturdays in order to receive goods carried by British Road Services, while traders opening on Saturdays are being asked not to deliver goods to the railways on that day?

Mr. Lee: The Government do not wish to interfere with the arrangements that are made between employers and trade unions as to how the work in industry may be carried out. We cover young people and women by legislation, but I would not like to extend that by any means.

Mr. Remnant: I hope the nationalised industries will take note.

Young Persons (Machine Injuries)

Mr. Bevins: asked the Minister of Labour how many young persons were injured by woodworking machines, drilling machines and lathes in 1949; and whether he will list the types of machines where danger exists for young, inexperienced workers and the safety guards required.

Mr. Lee: The statistics asked for are not available, and the suggestion in the second part of the Question is quite impracticable.

Mr. Bevins: Possibly the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the latter part of the Question, which asked whether he was prepared to proscribe these machines in the case of young persons?

Mr. Lee: The difficulty is that one or two sorts of machines, such as drillers and lathes, cannot be proscribed. There is a whole series of different types of machines and some single-purpose machines produced for the purpose of a single employer's needs, and to begin to proscribe one or two of them would not make any difference to accident rates.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Do not the Factory Regulations already provide that every dangerous machine shall be securely guarded?

Mr. Lee: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Bevins: As the hon. Member is obviously misinformed, would he read the last report on this subject by the Chief Inspector of Factories?

Mr. Lee: I may be misinformed, but I have worked at lathes and machines from the age of 14 until I came to this House.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is the Minister aware that one of the most dangerous lethal machines in general use in this country is the bacon slicer in the grocer's shop, which is not covered by the provisions of the Factory Acts at all?

European Volunteer Workers

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will publish a table showing the number of foreign workers, men and women, shown separately, who have been admitted from each


country in each year since the inception of the schemes for the immigration of European volunteer workers; how many have returned; how many have proved unsuitable; and whether he has any information as to the number who stay with the employer by whom they were engaged for the full year agreed.

Mr. Lee: I am having the available information extracted and will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Freeman: What proportion of them fulfilled their obligations by staying for a year in their employment? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the results?

Mr. Lee: In the main, yes.

Divers (Safety Regulations)

Lieut.-Commander Baldock: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will accelerate the introduction of safety regulations for divers on civil engineering works, with special consideration to telephone communication with the surface.

Mr. Lee: A preliminary draft code of safety, health and welfare regulations for various kinds of civil engineering works was published this year, and I am sending a copy to the hon. Member. Draft Regulations Nos. 80 and 83 deal with this subject. Consultations with the various bodies concerned will necessarily take some time, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that there will be no unreasonable delay.

Lieut.-Commander Baldock: Will the Minister promulgate these Regulations as quickly as possible, paying particular attention to the question of telephone communication with the surface? Is he aware that only last week a most distressing accident occurred to a diver, employed by British Railways at Holy-head, who had to cut off his own fingers to release himself from a trap, and that this accident could have been avoided if he could have spoken by telephone to the surface?

Mr. Lee: We wish to help these gallant men in any way possible, and we will expedite the matter accordingly.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Labour when he expects the Advisory

Committee on the Cost of Living Index to make a report.

Mr. Lee: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Digby) on 17th July.

Mr. Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman say when this Committee is going to meet next, and can he give me an answer to my original Question?

Mr. Lee: I think that I have indicated that they have made a report, and that report is being considered.

Mr. J. N. Browne: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Interim Report of the Cost of Living Advisory Committee includes a separate examination of the expenditure necessary and normally incurred by those whose income approximately corresponds to that of those drawing National Assistance.

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour when the Cost of Living Advisory Committee last met; and what recommendations it has recently made to him respecting the compilation of a reliable index.

Mr. Lee: The Cost of Living Advisory Committee last met on 24th May. A technical committee, which is advising the main Committee on various technical questions, has met six times since then, the last meeting being held on 20th July. I would ask hon. Members to await the publication of the Interim Report by the Cost of Living Advisory Committee.

Mr. Browne: Is the Minister aware that food, clothing, fuel and light alone represent almost 80 per cent. of the cost of living of the old age pensioners' budget, whereas it represents only approximately 56 per cent. of the Cost of Living Index? Will the Minister bear in mind that any future cost of living index should not include, as it does at present, such items as perambulators, children's clothing, gramophone records, motor cycle licences, vacuum cleaners and petrol, because they do not truly reflect the cost of living of old age pensioners and other people in similar circumstances?

Mr. Lee: Yes, but because perambulators may long since have been finished with in the case of the hon. Member, it does not follow that that is the case with


everybody. I trust that the hon. Member and everybody else will wait for the Interim Report.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: When is the Interim Report likely to be made available?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Agricultural Workers

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements have been made to call up agricultural workers and farmers in the autumn for National Service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lee: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture in the course of the debate last Wednesday.

Merchant Navy Personnel

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now consider exempting from National Service men who have served five years with the Merchant Navy.

Mr. Lee: No, Sir. Employment in the Merchant Navy in peace time is not regarded as equivalent to National Service and, as in the case of a coalminer or agricultural worker, a young man born in or after 1929 who leaves the Merchant Navy before reaching the age of 26 is liable to call-up under the National Service Acts.

Mr. Taylor: Is it not wrong to call up these men for service in the Army when it is obvious that, in case of emergency, they will be re-called either to the Merchant Navy or to the Royal Navy?

Mr. Lee: That question might be applied to a whole series of people in industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Childbirth (Analgesia)

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many gas and air machines have now arrived in Coatbridge.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): I am glad to say that four machines have now arrived. The town council have indicated that if a need for more is demonstrated more will be ordered.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there has been any demand or any application from the women of Coatbridge for this machine?

Mr. McNeil: In fairness, I have to state to my hon. Friend that so far there has been only one woman in the whole burgh who has applied for treatment by this machine.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Does that supplementary question not show clearly that proper administration of the analgesia service in Coatbridge is badly lacking?

Mr. McNeil: You can appreciate my difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in keeping the peace. The town council has given reasonable publicity to the service. We must admit the right of women to chose the method which they think is most appropriate to their confinement.

Hydro-Electric Scheme (Report)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received any report by the Amenity Committee in regard to Constructional Scheme No. 25, the Breadalbane project, of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.

Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir, I have received from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board a copy of the recommendations made by the Amenity Committee on the Breadalbane Scheme, together with the Board's observations upon the recommendations.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Was the report in favour of the scheme or against it? Is it not desirable that the report should be published so that the community may know the facts?

Mr. McNeil: I read the report with great care. I do not think it would be quite proper for me to comment upon it yet. The report is bound to be published since, if the scheme is objected to, there is a statutory obligation to make the report available to an inquiry. If there is no objection, the recommendations will be published in the White


Paper which accompanies the scheme on its presentation to the House.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say whether the report was favourable to or against the scheme?

Mr. McNeil: I am not going to comment upon it, but I have to make it clear that while the Committee have many recommendations to make—some, in my opinion, very good recommendations— they did, of course, accept the scheme.

Herring Industry

Sir David Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date herring curers in Wick who had completed their Herring Industry Board quota were notified that, subject to certain conditions, they could go on buying herrings and curing them from 10th July.

Mr. McNeil: I am informed by the Herring Industry Board that all curers at Wick who have completed their quota were informed of the arrangement referred to by the hon. Gentleman before they had done so, some on 10th July and others as they neared their quota.

Sir D. Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my assurance that no curers at all in the town of Wick had any knowledge of this change until the night of the 12th, two days after the Order came into operation?

Mr. McNeil: I should be glad to accept it, because the hon. Gentleman and I share anxiety upon the point. In fairness to the Board, I must say that information in my possession leads me to conclude that some of the curers at any rate had the information on 10th July.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the plans of the Herring Industry Board for the restoration of the herring fishing and marketing of the landings in the Isle of Barra and the Uist Islands.

Mr. McNeil: Until there is evidence of the return to the Barra and Uist grounds of the shoals of fine quality summer herring obtained there before the war, I am informed by the Board that they would not feel justified in renewing the efforts they have made since the war

to redevelop herring fishing and the facilities for the disposal of the catch in the area.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Western Isles some of the world's finest seamen are now standing idle? Surely something can be done by the Herring Industry Board to give them employment?

Mr. McNeil: It would be very unreasonable if a person of my name, of all people, were inconsiderate to this Island of Barra. I must admit, since these shoals are not there in quantity, that it would be unjustifiable to set up machinery and facilities which could not be used because of the absence of the herring in substantial quantities.

Mr. Boothby: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the maatjes cured in this locality are an epicurean article ranking with caviar? Will he therefore direct the Herring Industry Board to make intensive research into this matter, as the result might be very advantageous to this country?

Mr. McNeil: I am so delighted to hear the hon. Member turning away from his parochial choice of herring and oatmeal that I am anxious to agree with him. I have spent some time trying to persuade some of my American friends of the obvious truths about our herring. The fact is, however, that the herring are not now there in quantity. If the hon. Gentleman has any influence on this subject, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have seen herring— some of the finest herring in the world— landed at this place in the early summer, only to be sold for fishmeal and oil products? Surely the Herring Industry Board have some better policy than that.

Mr. McNeil: I do not quarrel with my hon. Friend at all on this subject. Whatever the fine summer quality of the herring may be, we can dispose of the fish. Unfortunately, there is not the herring in the seas at the moment, and I scarcely think the Government can be asked to take action to remedy that situation.

Water Supply, North Uist

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the plans for water supply for the Isle


of North Uist; what part of the work is to begin this year; and whether he will take urgent steps to hasten the work in view of the deplorable condition of the existing supplies.

Mr. McNeil: The county council have prepared a regional scheme for North Uist estimated to cost over £200,000, but they have not so far included any part of it in their initial programme of the most urgent works. I am prepared, however, naturally to consider any adjustment of the programme within its present approved limits which the county council may suggest for this purpose.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the schemes within the present financial limit are already prepared and that some of them are now under way, that no provision whatever has been made for this island in the next four or five years, that at this moment there is an epidemic of gastro-enteritis and influenza, that the local doctor is using pumped water, and that the place is in a deplorable condition from the unhealthy and unhygienic water? Cannot my right hon. Friend put some life into these schemes and see that North Uist has a chance with the rest of the country?

Mr. McNeil: I have great sympathy, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would not ask me to do the work of the county council. The scheme is there on paper, and it is for them to make a programme for their scheme.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the urgent nature of the problem throughout the whole of the Highlands?

Mr. McNeil: I am aware of it.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not the county council which sets the overall limit of expenditure, and that the county council has prepared schemes to the limit of that expenditure? Surely the Department of Health and the Treasury can now make some allowance and show a little elasticity in favour of places as badly served as this island?

Mr. McNeil: I think I have displayed my willingness not to be tied to a rigid figure, but the material and labour must he available.

Mr. MacMillan: The labour is available.

Legal Aid (Personal Case)

Mr. Pryde: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why Mr. William Anderson, 5, New Edinburgh Road, Dalkeith, Midlothian, has been refused legal aid and assistance.

Mr. McNeil: This is a matter of day to day administration of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Scheme, 1950, which has been entrusted to the Law Society of Scotland and for which, therefore, my hon. Friend will understand I have no responsibility.

School Meals

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the latest figures available showing the effect of the recent 1d. increase in the price of school dinners.

Mr. McNeil: It is estimated that there has been a decrease of just under 1.6 per cent. in the number of pupils taking school dinners.

Mr. Hamilton: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? First, is he absolutely convinced that this sum of money could not have been saved in more desirable directions from our point of view? Secondly, is he aware that the extra pennies for over 14 million school meals could have been provided by cutting out £60,000 from the annual increment paid to Queen Mary?

Mr. McNeil: I do not think the second part arises at all. I have been anxious to vary the scheme in any detail which would make it easier for these authorities, but my hon. Friend must know that, happily, the drop is not significant.

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of school children in Glasgow receiving meals; and what the effect on these numbers are following the recent increases in the cost of the meal.

Mr. McNeil: The number dropped from 59,000 in March to 57,800 in June. This, however, I am glad to point out, is not more than the usual seasonal decrease.

Tuberculosis Treatment Switzerland

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the selection of tubercular


patients for treatment in Switzerland; on what basis is selection determined; and when are the first patients likely to leave the United Kingdom.

Mr. McNeil: As I explained when announcing these arrangements on 10th April last, patients selected for treatment in Switzerland are normally persons in need of at least six months sanatorium care but unlikely to require any major surgical operation. Treatment in Switzerland is offered to persons recommended for sanatorium treatment in the ordinary way, where on medical grounds this particular treatment is considered appropriate by the tuberculosis physicians.
The first group of 36 patients from Scotland left on 15th June, and the second group of the same size on 18th July. It is intended that a further group should leave each month until October.

Mr. Hamilton: Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that information, would he indicate what steps are being taken to give the maximum amount of publicity to these facts and figures in the T.B. hospitals and to all T.B. patients throughout Scotland?

Mr. McNeil: I should have thought that has received wide publicity through the co-operation of the Press, but I should be glad to consider whether there is any other scheme we can utilise to bring it to the notice of the patients.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is it still a fact that only 130 beds altogether have been arranged for British patients in Switzerland? Having regard to the fact that there are upwards of 10,000 people awaiting treatment for tuberculosis, is there no hope of arranging for a far greater number of beds in Switzerland for patients from this country?

Mr. McNeil: I must resist the attempt to make any party capital out of this and point out that this represents more beds than ever before. But I ask hon. Gentlemen to go slowly in what at this stage can only be an experiment, although it is an experiment about which I am very optimistic.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there can be no question of party capital here; it is a question of arithmetic. I am merely asking him to compare the existing number of beds, 130, with the stated number of patients, which is 10,000.

Mr. McNeil: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to press me, let me say that his arithmetic is wrong. He must multiply it by two for Great Britain, and that number gives more beds than any Opposition Member ever thought of.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Really, this gross attempt to make party capital must be resisted. Is the Minister not aware that he was pressed by the Opposition for many a long month before the slightest action was taken by the Government?

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. McNeil: I must confess that I am indebted to the co-operation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman upon this subject. While I do not want to be pushed, I must repeat that the Opposition, when in power, took no special steps.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On that point, surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a much larger number of beds was available at home then?

Mr. McNeil: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not right and proper that we on this side of the House should make party political capital out of this wonderful Service that was talked about so much by the Opposition but about which nothing was done?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: May I point out that the hon. Member is seeking to disprove the statement of the Secretary of State and that an attempt is being made to make party capital out of this from his own benches?

Hospital Accommodation (Old People)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the National Committee for Old People's Welfare and from the National Corporation for the care of the old on the virtual impossibility of getting hospital accommodation for old people who need it; and what reply he has made to these representations.

Mr. McNeil: I regret I cannot trace having received any such representations.

School Sites, Glasgow

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent there is a deficiency of school sites in new housing areas in Glasgow; and in how many cases have the areas approved as sites been smaller than the standards laid down by the Scottish Education Department.

Mr. McNeil: The number of school sites in new housing areas in Glasgow is adequate for the needs of the areas themselves, but sufficient provision has not been made there or elsewhere in the city for special schools and for secondary schools to serve wider areas. Of the 66 sites in the new areas, 17 are smaller than those recommended by the Department.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that under Circular 46 of the Scottish Department of Health of May, 1950, the power to determine these standards was given to local authorities for an experimental period of one year? Can he now say what consideration has been given to the future attitude of his Department on the areas of school premises?

Mr. McNeil: It is a subject about which I am considerably worried. It must vary from area to area, and I ought to say that while general consideration is pending, there are substantial difficulties in Glasgow of which we must take account.

Mr. Rankin: May I ask, further, if my right hon. Friend is considering withdrawing these powers from the local authorities and resuming them himself?

Mr. McNeil: No, I am considering what is the best method I can use to put up the needed number of schools approximately to the standards required.

Education

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider issuing a report covering the progress and changes which have been made in the scope and content of Scottish education during the first half of the present century.

Mr. McNeil: As was stated in my Report on Education in Scotland in 1950, I am arranging for an historical survey of the Leaving Certificate Examination, with an assessment of its effects upon the

development of secondary education in Scotland, to be included in my Report for 1951. An historical survey of the development of technical education was included in a Report of the Advisory Council published in 1946. I will consider the inclusion of surveys of other aspects of education in future Reports.

Mr. Rankin: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer?

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how far education authorities are finding the new promotion schemes an improvement over previous practice, with regard particularly to pliability.

Mr. McNeil: It is still rather too early to assess what improvement the new promotion schemes have effected, but my in. formation is that they are generally regarded by education authorities as more satisfactory than the former procedure and that they are reasonably flexible in operation.

Mr. Rankin: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that these schemes have been in operation, I think, since 1947. May we hope that in the next Annual Report we will have more than the three lines that are devoted to them in the Report for 1950?

Mr. McNeil: indicated assent.

Agricultural Holdings

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, when land is surveyed to determine the best allocation between forestry and agriculture, what consideration is given to ensuring that the agricultural holdings created are of such a size and nature as to provide a living for a family.

Mr. McNeil: The surveys referred to by my hon. Friend are not primarily directed towards the re-organisation of agricultural units, but when land is purchased under the Forestry Acts and reconstitution of agricultural holdings is necessary, the aim is to provide units of an economic size wherever possible.

Mr. MacPherson: Does that mean that all the units at present being provided are of an economic size?

Mr. McNeil: I should say that that was generally true.

Housing (Agricultural Workers)

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses under the special programme for housing agricultural workers have now been allocated; how many have been completed; and what are the pro-proportions of traditional and nontraditional houses.

Mr. McNeil: Four thousand one hundred houses have been allocated in this programme. 64 per cent. of the 2,170 houses completed and 17 per cent. of the 820 houses under construction at the end of June were non-traditional houses. The remainder were traditional houses.

Mr. MacPherson: Can my right hon. Friend say how the proportion of nontraditional houses compares with the proportions of other types of houses in the housing programmes?

Mr. McNeil: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for his interest and prodding on this subject. In the first instalment, the proportion of non-traditional houses was higher, but in those under construction the proportion was lower.

Mr. J. J. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend consider advising local authorities, in placing their tenders, to give preference to non-traditional house building in order that we might speed up the completion of houses in Scotland?

Mr. McNeil: Yes. I have already indicated almost a reluctance on my part to usurp the job of local authorities, but while every consideration should be given to the local contractors I hope that where they do not have the potential to undertake the job, local authorities will use non-traditional houses.

Cattle Grids

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Department's regulations concerning cattle grids will be available for the local authorities in Scotland.

Mr. McNeil: According to my information, the general provisions regarding the installation of cattle grids under the Highways (Provision of Cattle Grids) Act, 1950, are contained in Circular No. 659, which was issued to local authorities by the Ministry of Transport on 4th May last.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a month ago hill farming schemes for cattle grids were being held up by the lack of issue of these regulations? Will the Secretary of State look into this matter again? Is this not a case where a little more bureaucratic expedition could assist home food production?

Mr. McNeil: I am sure that the noble Lord is misinformed. I have looked at some hill schemes myself where cattle grids were included, and which would, of course, rank for grant.

Judicial Salaries

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to increase judicial salaries in Scotland to bring them into line with the recently proposed increase in the salaries of county court judges.

Mr. McNeil: I hope to make a statement at an early date on this subject.

Mr. Grimond: Will this statement apply to all classes of judicial officers in Scotland, or only to sheriffs and sheriffs-substitute?

Mr. McNeil: It will not apply to all classes.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is just as important for Scottish judges to be put in a position to maintain appropriate standards of life as it is for their English colleagues?

Mr. McNeil: I have never doubted that.

Mr. Boothby: Will the right hon. Gentleman make this statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. McNeil: I very much hope so.

Mr. Mathers: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the position of, for example, the chairman of the Scottish Land Court, who has the status of a judge, but not the salary?

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the higher income groups in Scotland receive encouragement from him to have higher salaries at present, it will arouse the greatest resentment throughout the lower income group, particularly rail-way-men and others employed in heavy


occupations, who are not receiving wage increases?

Mr. McNeil: I did not think it was obvious that I was encouraging anyone.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that no reasonable person in Scotland will object to these law officers receiving what is due to them and is long overdue?

Mr. Rankin: Will the decision in regard to English county court judges in any way affect the terms of my right hon. Friend's statement?

Mr. McNeil: It would be unusual if there were a separation between these two sectors of justice.

Mr. Boothby: Arising out of a question from the benches opposite, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the salaries at present paid to sheriffs and to sheriffs-substitute are, in view of their responsibilities, an absolute scandal?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Disabled Persons (Motor Car Allowance)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Pensions the basis upon which the annual maintenance allowance of £52 10s., paid to disabled persons who have been provided with a motor car by his Department, was calculated.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Isaacs): The allowance represents the Government's contribution towards the cost of garaging the car, maintaining it in a roadworthy condition, and towards incidental running expenses. The State pays the insurance and road tax in addition.

Mr. Braine: In view of the fact that the Petrol Duty has been twice increased in the last year or so, is the Minister satisfied that undue hardship is not being caused to pensioners using these cars?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member's question gives me the opportunity of making this point clear. None of this allowance is allocated towards petrol. It is meant to cover the cost of garaging, repairs, tyres and spare parts—in other words, to keep the car in running order—and not the cost of petrol for running it.

Mr. K. Thompson: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that some of the users of these cars have been considerably embarrassed by being asked to pay sometimes a considerable sum to have the runway from the street to their garage altered so that they can get the car in and out? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter?

Mr. Isaacs: The Minister and the Government cannot undertake the reconstruction of houses, but we help in every way we can. When it is considered that the sum of £52 10s. is given to keep a new car in running order, it is not an unreasonable amount.

Personal Case

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Pensions when Mr. P. H. Titchen, Ordnance House, London Road, Pitsea, will be issued with a wheeled chair for which he was recommended in December, 1950.

Mr. Isaacs: A hand-propelled chair was delivered to Mr. Titchen on 28th June, but unfortunately he feels that he is unable to manage it. He is 78 years of age. One of my technical experts is visiting him this week to see how his special needs can best be met.

Mr. Braine: I appreciate the Minister's answer, but would he not agree that an inordinate delay to a man aged 78 is likely to cause greater distress than it would to a younger person? Since this chair was first recommended a long time ago, could he not impress upon his officials the need for more efficient and expeditious handling of the matter?

Mr. Isaacs: I assure the hon. Member that my officials have done their best to expedite it. The whole matter is governed by the supply situation. Such a great number of these vehicles have been issued lately to pensioners that for the time being we have outrun the capacity of the factories.

Widows' Pensions

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Pensions for an estimate of what would be the cost of paying pensions, irrespective of the date of marriage, to widows whose husbands died as a result of active service before 3rd September, 1939; and what steps he is taking to remove the present anomaly.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that there are too many unknown factors to permit me to give a reliable estimate of the number of such widows and, therefore, of the cost of paying pensions to them. With regard to the second part of the Question, I do not think I can usefully add to the reply given by my Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), on 19th June.

Mr. Wood: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a great deal of difficulty and misunderstanding was caused by this anomaly, and would he not carefully consider whether he and his right hon. colleagues could authorise the expenditure of what, presumably, would be an ever-decreasing sum of money in order to put the anomaly right?

Mr. Isaacs: There is, of course that anomaly, which arose from the decision taken in 1946 to deal with so many of these people who had been in need of assistance for a great time before that. I assure the hon. Member that we are not without sympathy towards this particular application, but in the circumstances I do not think we can take any action at the moment.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it was possible for him to give his first answer when one of the reasons always given before for not paying these pensions has been their cost?

Mr. Isaacs: Would the hon. and gallant Member please repeat the last few words of his Question?

Major Legge-Bourke: I asked how the right hon. Gentleman can ally his answer to the Question with the statement that one of the reasons for not making the concession hitherto was that it would be too costly.

Mr. Isaacs: I must point out that that difficulty of cost was mainly overcome by the decision in 1946. The argument before 1946 was that of cost, and I suppose that was why it was never tackled.

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Pensions what changes, and at what dates, have been made in the pensions paid to officers' widows since the end of the first war.

Mr. Isaacs: As the reply is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will,

with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
There have been some variations of rates according to the circumstances of the officer's death or whether the widow is receiving an allowance for a child or is over 40 years of age or is incapacitated.
The yearly basic rates for a 1914 War widow of a subaltern were £75 or £100 in 1917, £90 or £120 from January, 1919, £90, £120 or £140 from April, 1920, £110, £130 or £150 from November, 1944, and £130 or £150 from June, 1949. For 1939 War widows, the relative rates were £90 in September, 1939, £110 from February, 1942, £130 from August, 1943, and £130 or £150 from May, 1944.
Higher rates are applicable for widows of officers of higher ranks.

Limbless Centre, Leicester

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Pensions when the new limbless centre is to be opened in Leicester; and where it will be situated.

Mr. Isaacs: The new centre will be situated at 94, New Walk, Leicester, the present medical examination centre. Alterations to the premises are necessary, but I hope the centre will be opened by early September.

Mr. Janner: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for all the interest he has taken in this centre, which will be very much appreciated in Leicester, may I ask if he will be good enough to see that the opening is expedited and that this is done as speedily as possible?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, all the plans are ready and everything prepared. We are awaiting the consent of the landowner to some minor alterations.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL GARDENS (CONTINUANCE)

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is yet in a position to make a statement concerning the continued opening of the Festival Gardens beyond the present proposed date of termination.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Stokes): The Government fully recognise the advantages that would result from continued opening of the Festival Pleasure Gardens for, say, another five years and believe that such a course would be acceptable


to public opinion. Provided local authorities and others directly concerned agree and there are adequate safeguards for the finances, management and the maintenance of suitable standards, the Government would welcome a decision to continue. Assurances that no fresh capital will be needed and that there will be substantial repayments in reduction of the Exchequer loans already made are essential conditions for Government agreement, and actual operating results give every reason to hope that these conditions can be met.
The present position is that the local authorities are in consultation and Battersea Metropolitan Borough Council has resolved in favour of continuance. The problem is being examined in all its aspects by Festival Gardens Limited and other interests concerned, and I will make a further statement as soon as possible after I have had their views.

Sir R. Glyn: If this does not happen, will it not be a heavy burden on the taxpayers of the country?

Mr. Stokes: As I tried to explain in the debate, I am quite satisfied that the results so far show that the total moneys owing to the Exchequer could be repaid if the Gardens are allowed to run long enough.

Captain Crookshank: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if it does happen it will be contrary to all the pledges given to the House?

Mr. Stokes: It will be for the House to decide. The whole matter will come before the House in the end, and if it is found that public opinion is strongly in favour, I cannot believe that the House will oppose it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: From what other local authorities besides Battersea Borough Council is my right hon. Friend awaiting an expression of view?

Mr. Stokes: The head authority of course is the London County Council, and I am awaiting a communication from them. Chelsea, of course, also comes into it.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, when he makes a subsequent report, giving an indication of a one-year period of opening as well as a five-year period of opening?

Mr. Stokes: I should think one was stupid, but I should think an alternative of two or five would be about right.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR EMERGENCY POWERS

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that a state of war with Germany has been ended, the state of emergency accepted by the British people as being necessary for the waging of that war may also be ended.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The powers taken in 1939 were not dependent on any general declaration of a state of emergency.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that the British public gave up a great part of their liberties to meet this emergency and the war has obviously now ceased, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the emergency should be brought to a close and, if necessary, a fresh emergency declared with more limited requirements from the public?

The Prime Minister: I think it more convenient to adopt the practice we have adopted, that is, of gradually doing away with these powers as they become unnecessary; but there are some powers, as the hon. and gallant Member will realise, that are for the protection of the public.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: With great respect, is not the right hon. Gentleman's original answer a bit of a quibble, because the powers taken in 1939 were taken only in view of a threat of war with Germany, and if no such threat existed they would not have been taken?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is not the practice adopted on this occasion similar to the practice adopted by this country after World War I?

Hon. Members: No.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is not the declaration of a state of emergency designed to have a tonic and moral effect on the people of the country and to arouse them to a sense of their dire responsibility and duty? Is there not some danger, if this is allowed to drag on from year to year, with a state of emergency against


one country and then another, of a certain amount of confusion and frustration ensuing?

Captain Crookshank: Is the assumption that this country when governed by a Socialist administration is in a permanent state of emergency?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, but we are a country in a world in which there are reactionary Governments and totalitarian Governments.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: The Government having declared peace with Germany and thereby brought the emergency to an end, if an emergency exists, how many emergencies were there?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Wireless and Television Sets (Tax)

Mr. Browne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will free from Purchase Tax, wireless and television sets purchased by approved societies for the use, on loan, of housebound persons of insufficient means.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the very similar request of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) on 3rd July.

Mr. Browne: But is the Chancellor aware that the cost to the Exchequer of this small concession would be less than £1,000 a year? Would not this bring happiness to many people without creating a precedent or upsetting the economy of the country?

Mr. Gaitskell: While not disputing the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I must remind him that we have to consider the implications of a policy of giving exemptions from Purchase Tax in all sorts of directions.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Purchase Tax is paid on motor cars used by Ministers and, if so, who pays it?

Farthings, Leicester

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there is a shortage of farthings in circulation in Leicester; and that, as this coin

is required daily by housewives for their shopping, if he will arrange for more farthings to be put into circulation in that city.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have had no reports of a shortage of farthings in Leicester. If the local branches of the banks require any, their head offices can get them from the Royal Mint without difficulty.

Mr. Janner: May I ask my right hon. Friend to take into consideration the fact that this Question is raised in consequence of the fact that reports have been given to me by the housewives of Leicester because they are anxious to have these farthings and of the cumulative effect of not being able to obtain these small pieces of change?

Mr. Gaitskell: The farthings are available in the Royal Mint if the banks will send for them.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that far more important than the shortage of farthings in Leicester is the shortage of silver three-penny pieces in Scotland?

Remittance, Peking

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why his Department allowed the Central Union of Chinese Students in this country to remit £200 to Peking to a fund to buy weapons for the Chinese fighting in Korea.

Mr. Gaitskell: No application has been received from the Central Union of Chinese Students to remit £200 to Peking for this purpose.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: While accepting with pleasure the fact that the statement reported in a Socialist newspaper was untrue, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can say why the information department of the Treasury— which employs no fewer than 26 people including a Press officer—took no steps to deny it?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am not aware of the paper to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will give me particulars I will look into the matter.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have sent him copies of the cutting? [HON. MEMBERS: "Which paper?"] "The People."

Balance of Payments (Publicity)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a short popular pamphlet to explain the significance of the widening trade gap to the ordinary citizen of this country.

Mr. Gaitskell: I will consider this, though I am not sure that a special pamphlet is appropriate.

Mr. Gammans: Is it not obvious that exhortations have completely failed to make most of the people of this country realise that we have not earned our living as a country since the war, and is it not better for some special steps to be taken to point this out rather than that the harsh economic facts should teach us what is in fact true?

Mr. Gaitskell: I should have thought the hon. Member was well aware of the magnificent efforts made by the British people, with very considerable success, to achieve not merely a balance but a surplus last year.

Mr. Gammans: is it not a fact that the surplus last year was not due to the earnings of this country, but to the earnings of the Empire and the sterling area?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am referring to the United Kingdom balance of payments.

Oral Answers to Questions — HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT EXHIBITION

Earl Winterton: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Works what are the proposed arrangements for the opening of the Parliamentary Exhibition in the Grand Committee Room.

The Minister of Works (Mr. George Brown): The House will remember that on 21st November last, you, Sir, announced that the Parliamentary Supervisory Committee on the Festival of Britain, presided over by the noble Lord, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), had recommended the acceptance of a number of suggestions for enabling a full part to be played by our Parliamentary institutions in the Festival of Britain. The main recommendation was that an Exhibition on the history of

Parliament should be held in the Grand Committee Room.
I am glad to be able to say that the Lord Chancellor and you, Sir, will open the Exhibition at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 1st August, and all Members of both Houses are invited to attend. An opportunity will be given to Members to visit the Exhibition from after the opening ceremony until 8 p.m. The public will not be admitted on that day.
On the two following days, 2nd August and 30th August, admission to the Exhibition will be confined to Members of the two Houses and to their friends. If the House has by then risen for the Summer Recess, the Exhibition will be open to the public without charge, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Saturday, 4th August, and daily thereafter, Sundays excepted, until the House re-assembles.
I hope that everyone who can will visit the Exhibition. It is Parliament's own contribution to the Festival of Britain: and its purpose is to illustrate the history, development and achievements of Parliament, and the influence of our idea of Parliamentary Government on institutions overseas.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give favourable consideration to the proposal which has been made in some quarters that this Exhibition should go on tour, on loan so to speak, to provincial centres, provided that muncipalities are prepared to pay for it, in view of the fact that we all hope that this Exhibition, which owes so much to you. Mr. Speaker, and also to the Foreign Secretary and to the very admirable Executive Committee presided over by a high official of this House, will prove a lasting success?

Mr. Brown: I should like to associate myself with the tributes which the noble Lord has paid, and to say that I hope that public interest will result in requests being made for this Exhibition to be shown in provincial cities. I shall certainly do all I can to enable that to be done.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the House of Lords to be included in this Exhibition?

Mr. Brown: It is, of course, part of our historic Parliament and certainly will be included.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on the Price Control and other Orders (Indemnity) Bill, the Guardianship and Maintenance of Infants (No. 2) Bill [Lords], the Motion standing in the name of Mr. Paget relating to the Complaint of the honourable Member for Bolton, West, and the Motions standing in the name of Mr. Coldrick relating to the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Sir Herbert Williams: Before the Question is put, could the Leader of the House tell us when he expects we shall commence this other business? Will it be before ten o'clock?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I should think it is unlikely that we shall start it before ten o'clock. I imagine that the debate on the Education Estimates will run until then.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — KING ABDULLAH OF THE JORDAN (TRIBUTES)

3.32 p.m.

The Prime Minister: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to convey to His Majesty the expression of the deep sorrow and indignation with which this House has learned of the assassination of His Majesty King Abdullah of the Jordan; and to pray His Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to express on the part of this House their abhorrence of the crime, and their sympathy with the family of His late Majesty, with the Government and with the people of the Jordan.
In view of the eloquent tribute paid to His late Majesty by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and the statement I made, I think that further words in commending this Motion to the House would be unnecessary.

Mr. Churchill: I hope I am in order in seconding the Motion. At any rate I give it my wholehearted support. I agree with the Prime Minister that we cannot easily or lightly add words to those which were spoken yesterday under the promptings and spur of this loss, but it is a very great loss. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Our feelings grow. Not only is it a loss to our country but to millions of people who live in the Middle East, and it is very fitting that the Prime Minister should have moved, and be supported, as I am sure he will be, by the whole House, this Motion recording our grief and our sympathy. I have no doubt that it will carry far and wide throughout the Arab and the Israelite world and to wider regions our feelings of admiration for the great Arab statesman who has gone, and our earnest hope that his memory will be preserved, and his work not found to be in vain.

Mr. Clement Davies: I and my colleagues desire to be associated with the very moving words which have been used on both occasions by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition as well as by the Prime Minister. I will content myself by merely saying that I am sure that this Motion will commend itself to every Member of the House, and that we deeply regret and abhor this terrible, cruel crime.

Earl Winterton: I should like to add a word in two capacities, not only as senior Member of the House but also because in more ways than one I have been associated for many years with the very famous and distinguished family to which King Abdullah belonged. For example, King Feisal was a very dear friend of mine. We were brothers in arms in the fight for Arab freedom.
King Abdullah was a very old friend of mine. I can find no words which it would be necessary to add to the most eloquent tributes which were paid to King Abdullah both by the Prime Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to associate myself with everything they said, but I would add one more thing which I think is appropriate, coming from a great friend of his, as I claim to have been, who belongs to another religion—that he was a true son of Islam. I know that there is no tribute which can be paid to him by any of his friends that he would have appreciated more.

Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[24TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1951–52

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a further sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Education in England and Wales for the year ending on the 31st March, 1952, namely:


Civil Estimates, 1951–52



£


Class IV, Vote 1, Ministry of Education
10


Class IV, Vote 11, Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain
10


Class I, Vote 4, Treasury and Subordinate Departments
10


Total
£30

—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION

3.40 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I always feel that when we come to debate the main questions of education, we can all say that at least we have some knowledge and experience of the subject. In many debates on various subjects, some hon. Members can speak from personal knowledge; but all of us can look back, however long it may be, to the time when we were at school and when we were going through those years of education. Perhaps some of us think of the benefit that we got from our schooling and the chances of which we did not take full advantage.
Very often it helps if we can look at these educational problems from the point of view of the child who is being educated. We know that expert opinion will come from those who have been in the teaching profession and those who serve on local education authorities, but I still feel that our main point is to look at the education of a child—not a large quantity of children—and to try to ensure that each child is getting the best possible chance that we can give.
First, I should like to speak about this strange volume which we have been given. We all know that Section 5 of the 1944 Act places on the Minister the duty of presenting to Parliament each year an account of the performance by him of his duties and powers under the Act. But this year we have a different sort of document. I have been thinking of some of the other points which I hope to discuss, and I might perhaps call this document a comprehensive volume. It has a strange title, "Education, 1900–1950." It is not a survey or a record. It is described as:
The report of the Ministry of Education and the statistics of public education for England and Wales for the year 1950.
I wonder whether many hon. Members did what I did when the Report became available and began looking through it before turning to the introduction. If they did, they probably came to the conclusions which I reached, that it was most difficult to find anything in this volume concerning 1950. Of course, the matter is made clear if we turn to the introduction, because there we find that there are only to be short references to the events of 1950 at the end of each chapter.
That is a great mistake. When we get the Report of the work of the Ministry for each year, we want a good deal more information than is given in this document. The introduction speaks of the fact that there is not:
… a substantial chapter on educational method and the curriculum of the schools.
It adds:
This does not of course mean that the schools have made no response to the new knowledge about the nature and needs of children or to the changing conceptions of the function of education in a democratic community.
But why cannot we be told anything about these changes? There is a footnote. If one looks at that footnote after reading about the
function of education in a democratic community
one sees that there are a good many interesting documents referred to, the latest having been published in 1938.
Our first reaction is that we should like to know more about what has been happening in the educational world, and that it is impossible for us to assess the value and use of an administrative machine unless we know what has been the result of the using of that machine. I agree that the local education authorities have the right to arrange their own schools, but I think that every hon. Member will agree that the Minister in charge has a duty to keep in touch to see what has been happening in the schools.
His Majesty's inspectors, rightly, have been referred to as guides, philosophers and friends. We should have liked to have known how they were guiding and what their philosophy was. I see also that these guides, philosophers and friends spread abroad "sweetness and light." It is rather a pity that we had to have the footnote about Matthew Arnold. I think that I should have left gut the reference to "sweetness and light" if it had been necessary to make an explanation about that phrase. I am not really asking that in this Debate we should have much sweetness, but on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends I should like to ask for a little more light.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Look at the children.

Miss Horsbrugh: Exactly. It is about the children that we want to hear from the wider point of view. We meet them and talk to them and to their teachers, but I think that this document which is supposed to be the Annual Report should tell us more about the children and their education. I have seen this document referred to as an historical digest. I cannot help finding some of the language in which it is couched not very digestible. I can imagine the difficulty of making this a comprehensive volume. It is a difficulty found in other comprehensive schemes. Probably the lay-out would have been much greater and the document would have been longer. As it is, it appears to have been cut after the information was gathered together. There are bits about one objective and bits about some other.
I do not think that anyone can say that it gives a very good example of English prose at its best. I wonder whether I am being pedantic, but, after all, this is a volume from the Ministry of Education and it ought to be in really good English. I wonder why the title of the last paragraph in the chapter on buildings is Envoi. Was it not possible, in the whole range of the English language, with all its richness, to find some other title? From the historical point of view also, I think that this document is a little bit strange. I never knew, and somehow I do not think that it is quite correct, that adult education in this country began with Ruskin College.
There are some other matters which are disappointing. I know that it must have been terribly difficult to write this document. It should have been done in a different way. An historical survey of the years 1900–1950 should have been made into a volume of its own, and then we might have had a proper Report of the work of the Ministry in 1950. There is an explanation of the various Acts and the various Reports. There is also a good deal about the changes which those Acts brought about; but, strangely enough, when we come to the Butler Act—

Mr. George Thomas: The Butler Act?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes. There is reference to the Butler Act and the Fisher Act.


From time to time, we have references to the 1918 Act and to the 1944 Act, but in this volume, which perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not fully studied, there are references to both. The choice for all tastes is fully comprehensive. On page 39, we have a strange statement. Having been told what was done in like cases, as the result of other Acts we are then told:
But this is not the place to attempt a detailed description of the 1944 Act and the amending measures that have followed it. The Act awaits the verdict of history, and its true stature will not become fully apparent for some decades.
I quite agree that the verdict may await history but, as this is supposed to be an historical survey of the difficulties and the changes that have been made, I think it is a pity that there was not either the time or the space to include even an outline of the changes that took place under the Butler, or 1944, Act.
As to the conclusions, they are referred to at the end of each chapter, and I think they work out at under one-third of the Report, and probably a good deal less. These paragraphs to which I refer are almost snippets, and we get very little information even there. It is rather tan-talising, in view of some of the problems we have to face, and we had hoped that we would have got more information about the problems; but no facts are given.
Let us take the question of finance, which is dealt with on page 32; the Report says that that is not the place to deal with it fully. Where, I wonder, is it to be dealt with? On the subject of higher technological education, a Report was received in 1950, but no decision has yet been made. On the revision of building regulations, the Report says the task was well advanced at the end of 1950. I went through this volume, through these little bits, having gone into the history and having checked it up with a few other historical documents which are more easy to grasp in the language in which they are written, but I found very few actual facts or decisions given to us on these matters, and I must, therefore, in what I have to say, ask the right hon. Gentleman a good many questions. I have informed the Minister of some of the subjects on which I shall ask questions, and he may think that the list is quite formidable, but the reason is that the information contained in this volume is so slight.
In passing, I want to ask one question about finance. We see the figures of the increase in expenditure, but what is particularly interesting and requires attention is that, although the increase for 1951–52 will not be as great an increase in the Exchequer grant as before—it is an increase from just over £193 million to just over £204 million—the increase in the charge on the rates is from just over £98 million to just over £113 million. If hon. Members looked at the increases each year, they will have found that the outstanding thing is the enormous increase in the rates. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, to tell us what he is doing in the consideration of this financial problem.
When there was a debate in this House on 17th April, we asked the Minister several questions on finance and priorities, and he said that there probably would have to be priorities, and that he would have to look at some things which might be called frills and possibly cut them out. Are we to have any further information about these things, because there must have been a great deal of consultation about them? Hon. Members will remember that, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government had got as far as considering the amount that would be saved either by lowering the school leaving age or by raising the age at which children come into the schools.
Indeed, this problem has to be faced, and the whole country is wanting to know. I am certain that we want to carry the people of this country with us in our determination to provide the best possible education. Therefore, I think it has to be made absolutely clear and quite definite to the people that the rates are going up, but that we are looking very carefully at the financial considerations and seeing what can be done.
It was rather disappointing to find, at the end of a paragraph, the statement that this was not the place to discuss finance, because, even with this increase, we are all agreed that there are many gaps still to be filled and that the filling of those gaps will mean extra expenditure. In arranging for that, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, when surveying the whole field of education, that there is to be further expenditure on filling certain gaps.
The second question I want to ask him is about higher technological education, and it is very serious. We know that we in this country are behind other countries, and we know that a great industrial country—

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): Who says so?

Miss Horsbrugh: I do.

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not accept that.

Miss Horsbrugh: The right hon. Gentleman says that, in higher technological education, we are not behind other countries, but I think there are a great many cases in which we can say that we are. At any rate, we will all agree, which is even more important, that we want more higher technological education. Very well, we agree; and I do not think there need be much between us on that point.
We want to know what arrangements are being made to carry out what we all agree ought to be done. We have far too few colleges and schemes. Manchester has done a splendid job, but we all agree that there ought to be more and more examples of what Manchester has been doing. I ask that question because we have had debates and discussions about this matter and there have been reports one after the other, and still nothing is being done. At this time, industry is requiring this technological knowledge more and more, and there must be more push and drive infused into it. I therefore ask the Minister whether he has made up his mind what ought to be done, or whether he is doing nothing at all about it.
Now I should like to turn to what I would call the ordinary school life of the children, and to consider whether, in their various stages, we are doing as much as we possibly can for them. We are all agreed that what we want to do is to help them to the best and fullest development of body, soul and mind. We all agree that there are many difficulties that might hold us up in many ways, but we want to see that we are making the best possible use of all the means we have.
I begin with the health side. I think that the subject of the children's dental treatment is something of which we should all be ashamed. I put the blame

for that absolutely straight on the Government. We knew the facts, and the number of dentists looking after children's teeth has been discussed before. There were last year, as far as I can gather, only 717. If we were to have one dentist to every 3,000 children, which we were told was the aim, we should have to have 1,900. In this volume, we are not told the number of children whose teeth were inspected or treated in 1950, but we know that in 1949 the number inspected was 2,807,000, the number referred for treatment was 1,761,000, and the number of children treated was 1,422,000.
How many children were inspected and how many were treated during last year? I fear that the number will not be very large, but I repeat that this failure to look after the children's teeth is entirely the responsibility of the Government. This failure to deal with the matter is all the more serious because they have had the time in which to decide what to do about it. We have not yet been given this information, but are still waiting for it. The Coalition Government knew in 1944, and the Labour Government knew in 1945, that it was quite impossible to have a full, comprehensive dental service for the people of this country without injuring the dental service for the children, and they had to make their choice.
I would refer hon. Members to the White Paper of 1944 on the National Health Service. On page 9 of that White Paper we find a paragraph headed "Temporary exemptions to comprehensiveness," which says:
A full dental service for the whole population, for instance, including regular conservative treatment, is unquestionably a proper aim in any whole health service, and must be so regarded. But there are not at present, and will not be for some years, enough dentists in the country to provide it. Until the supply can be increased, attention will have to be concentrated on priority needs. These must include the needs of children and young people and of expectant and nursing mothers.
I took part in the debate on that White Paper and discussed it with hon. Members of this House. They asked over and over again,
"Cannot we have a full dental service?" My reply was, what is the use of the Government saying that there can be a full dental service when we know there cannot be a good service? We must keep the dental skill available, above all, for the children, and in that


way we shall have gradually growing up a generation with good teeth. Again, there was the Report of the Teviot Committee which was set up to go into this matter. In that Report we find exactly the same thing, that special care should be taken of the children.
A point ultimately of even greater significance is that if they come to a true valuation of dental health, our major problem is solved not only for them in their adult lives, but also for future generations.… We regard a big expansion of the dental services available to school children as one of the essential foundations of a comprehensive service.
Those were the Reports and those were the facts known to the Government, and yet, in spite of that, they brought forward a dental service for everybody and deprived the children of dental care, which simply means that we shall have another generation growing up with their teeth in a state of disease—a thing which need not have occurred—and we shall have to begin the whole course over again.
I know it is being asked, what are the Government to do now? Suggestions of various sorts are being made, and I want the Minister to tell us what he is going to do about it. I have heard it suggested that persons not fully qualified should be brought in to help look after the teeth of the children. We hear talk of what is being done in New Zealand, but I would urge the Minister to realise that the greatest skill is needed in looking after the children's teeth. I think it would be a great setback to the health of the children and to the welfare of the next generation if unskilled people were given the care of the children's teeth.
I also want to ask if medical inspections are being carried out to the full extent, and whether there is a sufficient number of school nurses. We were all interested in this problem during the war when the children were evacuated. I saw a good deal of it as children were evacuated to the various parts of the country. I remember the splendid work which the school nurses did, and I want to know if we have a sufficient number of them, and if they are still carrying on their work to the fullest possible extent.
One of the great things about their work, and something which is not easy, is that they visit the homes and get in touch with the parents. A great deal of their work has to do with cleanliness, and,

as we all know, one of the greatest difficulties of many mothers today lies in the fact that the houses in which they live are not suitable. We are always hearing of the difficulty of their doing their washing and keeping clean. I think that tactful and understanding school nurses, given the co-operation of the parents, could do an enormous amount for the welfare of the children.
Now I pass to something which I consider very important—partnership between the teachers and the parents. I know that nearly all teachers are anxious for a real partnership with the parents of the children they teach. We have the parent-teacher associations, and they are excellent. We want to stress more and more how good they are, because we are not going to get the best chance for the children unless we keep that partnership. In some cases it is extremely difficult.
We know, of course, that there are bad homes and bad parents, and that it must be heart-breaking for a great many teachers to try and struggle with such people; but I believe the great majority of parents are anxious for the welfare of their children and anxious to be consulted about them by the teachers. There are occasions when the parents may feel that there is something of the atmosphere of "the teacher knows best," just as we are sometimes given to understand that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best, which is very irritating. We want to get away from that sort of atmosphere.
There is another subject of great interest which has lately been mentioned in the Press and in one or two reports. It is the question of truancy. I would say straight away that I do not think truancy is practised on a very large scale. Perhaps I ought to refer to it in present-day language as the "voluntary absenteeism of the pupil." We could find other terms for it, but I am trying to keep up the standard, although I am not going to use such words as "Envoi."
In the Report of the Committee appointed by the British Medical Association and the Magistrates' Association to study the matter of the delinquent boy, there are several paragraphs devoted to this subject of truancy. I understand that truancy occurs mainly among boys between the ages of 14 and 15, although I believe that the numbers are very small. Hon. Members have probably read that


Report, and I do not want to go into it in any great detail. The Report suggests that the boy of 14 or 15 may get bored at school and may feel frustrated. His parents may not feel that he is using his time to the best advantage. There does not appear to be that partnership between the teacher and the parent for the purpose of keeping up the interest of the child that I hope we shall get to the greatest possible extent.
The Report says that in the case of such boys, it is nearly always found that when they go to work, they are the main offenders as regards voluntary absenteeism. That is something that must be checked, and we must consider whether in our schools we are retaining the interest of boys of 14 and 15 years of age. Perhaps the Minister will tell me if it is correct to say that most of the absenteeism occurs in that age group. I am sure the number of such cases is not large, but I should be interested to know what it is. I think it is for us to study the problem and find out the reason for it.
I am very disappointed in the number of children attending technical secondary education, and I wonder whether we have pushed on sufficiently with that part of our educational system. The numbers have not increased to the extent that I thought they would. In 1948, there were 72,000, in 1949, again 72,000, and in 1950, up to 74,000. Our idea was that with the three streams there would be a chance of technical secondary education. I am talking now of boys of 15 years of age, and I am sorry to say that in many ways I do not think this third stream of our secondary education has received perhaps as much attention as it should receive. I know there has been much to do and that there are many schemes. Indeed, I wonder whether we have been trying to do too many things at one and the same time.
I think it is important that we should look at this matter and that the Minister should tell us more about the progress that has been made in technical secondary education. I was sorry to hear the Chancellor, when he made his statement about reductions in the investment programme, say that increased provision for technical education must be delayed. I think that is disastrous. I know that there have to be economies and I should

like the Government to look around. Some of us may think of some economies, but I am not going into that today. We should look again and consider what are the priorities. The claims of secondary technical education certainly ought to be considered.
I should like to say something now about the voluntary schools. In the document about the adolescent delinquent boy to which I have already referred, there are paragraphs dealing with the lack of religious influence on the life of boys which are most distressing and tragic; but they are facts which we have to face. One hears a great deal said today about the lack of parental control and about the lack of parental interest in children. I hope, therefore, that we welcome it when parents or the churches or religious bodies urge the need for religious education.
The opinion is often expressed that there would be greater progress and a tidier scheme of education if we could dispense with the voluntary schools and have an agreed syllabus, but the tidy scheme is not always the best scheme. If we agree that parents should take an interest in the welfare of their children and we are thankful when we hear that parents are anxious that children should have the church teaching in which they believe, then we must face the difficulties of the voluntary school. We cannot have it both ways. We have too little rather than too much interest in religious affairs nowadays, but I know, and we all know, what difficulties are involved with the voluntary school system.
We all realise that since the passing of the 1944 Act unforeseen difficulties have been met by the various denominations. Perhaps it was not foreseen to a full extent what the re-distribution of population would mean with large numbers of people going into new housing estates and what are called "displaced pupils" arriving from various parts of the country. We also know the difficulties created by the greatly increased cost of building. There are many other difficulties which I cannot mention in the time available.
I put these matters merely to ask the Minister whether he is considering them and whether he is hopeful that some of the difficulties may be ironed out. I do not expect a final reply. We know that they cannot be easily overcome, but that does


not mean that we should sit down and say that we cannot be bothered about them. We want to help the parents and to help the children to be educated as far as possible as their parents would like them to be educated.

Mr. Cove: Any suggestions?

Miss Horsbrugh: I will leave that for the moment, but I have been very careful. I have not asked the Minister to give a final reply, but merely whether he is considering these things and whether he thinks he will be able to make certain adjustments. I hope that decisions on revised building regulations will be reached as soon as possible.
Another factor which affects the home, parental co-operation and the children vitally is the village school. I know that the problem of the village school is a very difficult one. I see that since 1947, 369 primary schools and three secondary schools in villages have been closed. In speeches by experts on education and in articles in the newspapers, a great deal of concern is expressed about the closing of these village schools. I know that on each occasion when he has been asked to sanction the closing of a village school the Minister has said that he would look at it entirely from the point of view of the welfare of the children.
But in connection with the village school, it is not only the time the child spends at school that matters. The village schoolmaster and schoolmistress are friends of the family. When the child leaves school he keeps in touch with the headmaster. Troubles and difficulties are brought to the headmaster, the friendship is kept up, and parents talk over their problems with him. If we sweep away the village school and take away the village schoolmaster, we take something valuable out of village life.

Mr. G. Thomas: The right hon. Lady is surely aware that many of these schools ought to have been wiped out 50 years ago. They are shocking buildings and are a menace to health.

Miss Horsbrugh: I agree, but the problem is that of retaining for the village the valuable part which the village school plays in its life.

Mr. Thomas: What about building new village schools?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am coming to that. I should like to ask what the Minister is thinking of doing about this problem. We all know that at the moment it is not possible to clear away village schools which are not as good as they might be. Seeking for a solution, I put out as a personal idea whether there is any chance of improving some of them. I do not say that all of them can be improved; but is there any chance of further repair or of adding to them—a kind of make-do and mend?
It is clear that with the present push for places, we shall not be able to sweep away immediately all schools which are not up to standard, but could not some of the schools in that condition be made better schools while they still have a certain term of life? If we did that we should be doing something useful for the country and for the children. I should like to know what the Minister thinks about that suggestion.
I turn now from the village schools, and what are very often too small schools, to the problem of the big classes in our schools. I find that 85,000 children are in classes of 50 or over and that 1,500,000 are in classes of 40 to 50. There has been an increase in the primary schools, but there has been a decrease in the size of classes in secondary schools as a whole. The increase has actually come about with the increased birth-rate and the other factors to which I referred earlier. There are 2,400,000 children in classes of 30 to 40. This problem of big classes is a serious matter. I agree with what the Minister has said before, and what hon. Members have often said, that it is impossible for teachers to teach children in those numbers.

Dr. King: They had to do so all the time the right hon. Lady's party were in power.

Miss Horsbrugh: We need not worry about who was in power. I agree that the Conservatives were in power for 28 of these past 50 years, but it has been a magnificent story of progress in education and of anxiety on the part of the country to do the very best for the schools. Standards have gone up and changes have been made in all walks of life, but right through, whatever party was in power, there has been a real desire for educational advance. Now we have been able to go further. In the years to come, per-


haps people will look back and say that some of the things done today were wrong. Certainly there will probably be changes in children's diets, and the food we give them today will be considered to have been wrongly balanced. That always happens every few years.
I should like to ask the Minister a question about buildings, to which I think I know the answer, though I should like to have his confirmation. The amount of work to be started this coming year is less than it was last year. I know that the cost per place in the secondary schools has been reduced to £240 and that the cost per place in the primary schools is £140. In other words, there is a reduction. I should like to know whether it is simply a reduction in the cost of providing places or whether there is a reduction in the number of places.

Mr. Tomlinson: No.

Miss Horsbrugh: I thought that was the case, but in view of those figures I wanted to be certain. Having reached that stage, I now want to ask hon. Members to consider what the children are learning. Are we satisfied with what the children are being taught, how they are being taught and how they are learning?
Hon. Members will all have read the Report on reading ability. In that Report there are a number of very interesting facts for us all to learn. Although I think we shall all agree that in any test it is not possible to judge exactly to a decimal point, it is rather serious to reflect that probably five out of every 100 children leaving school at the age of 15 may not be able to read any better than a child under nine. I think it is cruel if children leave school without being able to read. They will start their work with a feeling of failure and probably with a defeatist outlook. They will try to hide from their companions the fact that they cannot read. Surely reading and figuring, as the Minister said, are essential. As is said elsewhere in the Report they are the tools of education.
This matter is serious. I was surprised when the Minister, replying to the debate on 17th April, said:
I would not take it as tragic if some expert pointed out that the youngsters of today were not quite as good readers as children were 10

years ago If they are not quite so literate in that scholastic sense, maybe in other directions they are far more capable of entering into the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 1728.]
I did not like that statement. It alarmed me. But I was much comforted when I read another statement of the Minister's —perhaps it was a more considered statement— in the preface to "Reading Ability," in which he expressed the hope that the suggestions would prove helpful to all those whether teachers, parents, etc., who recognised that the ability to read, write and figure and the development of personality were not competing ideals but that the first was indispensable to the second. I like the Minister's written declaration. It gives me more confidence than what he said at the end of the debate on 17th April.
This backwardness is not necessarily due to the war years. When anything goes wrong, it is easy to say that it must be the result of the war. In the appendix we find:
The Committee must conclude that there is no evidence that backwardness exists only among the older pupils whose education was upset by wartime conditions. It seems to be as marked throughout the primary schools as the secondary schools in 1948.
If we really want to give the children the best, we must always watch to discover where the weak points are. I am glad that this Committee was set up, and I hope that some action is being taken on their Report because it makes a good many of us wonder whether we are giving the best education we can to the children.
There is no doubt that very often in education, as in everything else, we have the effect of the swing of the pendulum. There was a time when there was too much learning by heart, and too much of the idea that the child went to school to sit down at a desk the whole time with a book in front of him. I am wondering now whether we have not swung a bit too far away from that.
A short time ago a friend of mine asked a child at school how she was getting on with her lessons. The little girl replied "In my school we have very few lessons. We do activities." We find in this Report something about activities, and it says that what are called activities are not enough. It needs the most talented and skilled teacher to get the best out of the activities. I ask the


Minister to consider whether we are not now getting too far away from what was called book learning, and whether, with our stress on activities, we are not getting too far away from the books, the pens and the paper.
We want children to have all the advantages possible from education. We want them in the early stages to have the tools. We want them to be able to develop and to be mentally alive and interested. We want them when they go to the secondary school to have those tools and to be able to read and write so that they can take advantage of education. I should like to know whether the Minister, through His Majesty's inspectors, is keeping in touch with the question whether the pendulum has swung too much the other way.
Then we come to the secondary schools. Here we hope that by this time the child will have had what we call the tools of learning. Here we have laid down the tripartite scheme so that the interests and the abilities of each child shall be served as much as possible—the technical, the modern or the grammar. We all know of the difficulties of examinations at the age of 11, but the fact that they are difficult does not necessarily mean that they are wrong. We often read that for a great many children there is a stimulus in leaving one school and going to another school, so that this does a great deal of good. But have we got the best form of test? Would more human or personal tests be as good? Has this question been considered from various angles? Should the headmaster interview the children and learn more about them? I put those ideas forward only because I do not feel that we should necessarily allow ourselves to think that mechanical tests are the best and that they cannot go wrong.
Each child is an individual. Children have got different capabilities and different interests, as we all have. It is said in "Reading Ability":
Nothing is to be gained and much may be lost by turning a blind eye to the wide differences in ability between different people.
It should not be thought that if a boy goes to a technical school or to a secondary modern school he is more clever and more able than a boy who goes to another school. He has a different ability. We have got to stress the existence of that difference between children.
I should like to refer to a statement which I found in "The Policy for Secondary Education." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I found one statement perfectly appalling. It seemed to negative the whole idea which he have been working on.

Mr. Cove: What is that?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am coming to it. It says:
If this is the century of the common man it must he made the century of the common child.
There are no common children. I should like hon. Members to ask parents in this country "Are all your children the same as everybody else's? Are these the common children? Have they a common design?" [Interruption.] I read that statement as meaning that they are common in that they all have the same abilities. To me, the idea of the common child is completely repugnant and contrary to the idea of individuality and personality and different abilities.

Mr. Messer: Does the hon. Lady mean that there are not certain things which are common to all children?

Miss Horsbrugh: There are certain things which are common to all human beings.

Mr. Messer: What is the objection, then?

Miss Horsbrugh: Certain things are common to all human beings and it was hardly necessary to have stated that, but from the educational point of view the crucial things are the uncommon things— the different abilities, the different personalities; and if we are to have good education we must look to these differences in abilities and help the child to develop those separate abilities rather than try to get children on to one common ground, as one common child.

Mr. Pannell: And no privileged children.

Miss Horsbrugh: I would infinitely rather have privilege than have children all of one sort.

Mr. Cove: Mr. Cove rose—

Miss Horsbrugh: I am sure the hon. Member will raise the matter later. I have


kept the House rather too long, and I would rather not give way to him. I am sure that many hon. Members will have a chance to speak. That was the main point I wished to put.
Secondly, I turn to the different sorts of secondary education. I want to see more secondary technical education for these children with ability so that they may take advantage of the opportunity. I was interested to see what the Minister said in the debate on 17th April. He said that a school for 500 was a pretty big school. I quite agree, but I wonder what he would call—and perhaps he will tell us when he replies this evening—a school of 2,200. What description would he give to such a school? I think it is neither pretty nor big, nor is it a school; I think it is a monster of mass education, with children on the assembly line. We must try to keep individuality in the school. I suggest that it is absolutely essential that the teacher should know the children.

Mr. G. Thomas: What about Eton?

Miss Horsbrugh: It is about 1,100, I think. Most public schools are smaller, but I shall come to all those points later. I do not know all the public schools very well, but I think Eton is the biggest. Here I am talking about a school of 2,200— a comprehensive school; and one of the reasons given for the comprehensive school is that we shall be able to do away with the examination at 11 to a certain extent. That is the only reason I have seen advanced, but nevertheless we shall still have to divide the children by some examination at some time into the different streams if they are to advance in accordance with their ability. I think it is wrong to suggest that the only way to find a better system than the choice at 11 of seeing what sort of education the children should have is by placing them under these mass factory arrangements.
I am quite certain that some keen educationalists think it is the best thing to do, and I can see that experiments have to be made, but I urge the Minister to use his influence to see that these experiments are not on a very large scale. We are just starting the new scheme after the 1944 Act. We have that tripartite scheme. Cannot we try that out and see whether it succeeds?
I noticed that in one place the Report —and this is one of the difficulties about it—states that secondary education for all is agreed. "What we are discussing now," they say, "is the subject of the single, bilateral or comprehensive school." I wish the Report had told us something about the discussions. That is what is so tantalising about it. They say they have discussions, but they do not tell us more. If they had outlined the pros and cons it would have been interesting. No doubt the Minister has views on the matter and I hope he will tell us what they are, but in these education debates and in the Report we should like to hear more about these schemes.
In the Labour Party pamphlet which was issued—apart from the subject of the common child—we were told that the schools need not necessarily be large, that we need not have such large comprehensive schools. I think this will be a very difficult problem. I see that in the circular which the Ministry of Education sent out in 1947 the comprehensive school was to be about 1,700, or 1,500 to 1,700, and it was always visualised that the comprehensive school had to be a great deal bigger than the nominal school. I think that is a great pity.
In an article in a daily paper, written by the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) who I believe is Chairman of the Labour Party, she says:
The arrangements of number of classes catering for the specialised bents of the children should not be such as to make unreal demands on staffing and accommodation 
Again, I feel we are getting too near the idea of the common child. I want as much space as possible for the child to give the opportunity for what are called these specialised bents, and I think we should lack that in the comprehensive schools. In the article written by the hon. Lady—

Mr. Ellis Smith: What paper?

Miss Horsbrugh: In the "Daily Herald," I think of 17th July. In this article on the subject it is interesting to see that in the first paragraph she tells of a very beautiful school where she taught, with a fine gymnasium, laboratories, domestic science room, woodwork, metalwork and all the rest. I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady taught at such


a nice school. There was a broadcast made by the hon. Lady in which she gave the impression—

Mr. Smith: A very good broadcast.

Miss Horsbrugh: —to a great many people that the schools in which she had taught before the war had been what one might call of a lower standard and rather miserable. She spoke of the condition of the children in contrast to their chances given them since the war. It would perhaps have given the people of this country a clearer idea, and certainly would have given a great deal less worry to Yorkshire, if the hon. Lady had mentioned the school which she now mentions in her article, as well as the others.

Miss Bacon: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, for this morning she gave me warning that she would quote from my article, although as yet she has not done so.

Miss Horsbrugh: I have done so and am going to do so.

Miss Bacon: Perhaps I could interject later. I should like to state that the last school, which I described in the "Daily Herald," was a new school built by the West Riding Education authority before the war—and everybody knows what that means.

Miss Horsbrugh: I shall quote from the hon. Lady's article.
When looking into the subject of the comprehensive school I wondered if it were thought that children would get a better education. I have looked into the matter very carefully, but more and more I have become convinced that there is something more than that in the minds of some. None of us probably takes much notice of what may be said at party conferences—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— by somebody proposing a motion which he wants his party to accept. He may exaggerate. I think we can put it quite fairly like that; a member of the party, proposing a motion urging certain action, wanting support and wanting the acceptance of the motion, may exaggerate.
But when I saw what was said on the subject of the comprehensive school at a Labour arty conference I found it was not merely argued from the educational point of view, but that it was suggested that the school would bring

about the right Socialist outlook on the State. I began to fear that there was more in this than simply the child's education.
When I read this article by the hon. Lady I came to that conclusion again. We begin by getting these words "class segregation" into our educational discussions. We have used the word "class" in the past meaning a class in school, but I am afraid there seems to be more of what I might call party politics being introduced into the word. The hon. Lady finishes her article on comprehensive schools with these words:
It is not only the children's education that is at stake. It is the whole basis of society.
Of the basis of society we have already heard in a speech made at that conference, and I seriously ask hon. Members opposite: Can they really tell the Committee today that, when they urge having comprehensive schools, they are urging that solely for the benefit of education—[HON. MEMBERS:
"Certainly."]—or do they feel, as has been said, that in that way will be an opportunity of bringing about the Socialist State and of having more uniformity in education?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Well, hon. Members opposite do not agree with what was said at the conference.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who said it?"]—It was said at the Labour Party Conference by the mover of a motion. He said:
I believe that in the comprehensive system of education lies the basis of educating the next generation to form a Socialist society.

Hon. Members: Who said it?

Mr. Hollis: Woodall.

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes.

Miss Bacon: I shall not be catching the eye of the Chair today, and I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way and for having warned me that this was coming up. The official speech at the last Labour Party Conference on behalf of the National Executive from the platform was made by myself and not by any other delegate.
With regard to the pamphlet which the right hon. Lady quoted, perhaps I should make one thing clear. This was a pamphlet drawn up by a committee of which I was chairman—a committee of people who were very experienced in all


fields of education, many of whom had had many years' experience in schools. Moreover—and, perhaps, the right hon. Lady is not aware of this—at a Conservative teachers' conference a short time ago the examination system at 11 was condemned, but nothing was suggested in its place. Up to now the right hon. Lady has not suggested anything in its place. Some of us on this side of the Committee have had years' experience of teaching children in schools, and know what we are talking about.

Miss Horsbrugh: Let us be quite certain about this remark I have quoted as being made at the Labour Party Conference. I thought I had made it quite clear. They were words used by a delegate moving a motion. I know the hon. Lady spoke on behalf of the Labour Party Executive, and accepted the motion about the comprehensive schools. The words I have quoted were used in the speech moving the resolution, which was accepted by the hon. Lady.
I do not know—so far as I know, she did not—that she said, in accepting it, that from the educational point of view the comprehensive school was the basis of Socialist society. There was no need for her to say it. I think hon. Members have a perfect right to bring that remark forward as expressing what other hon. Members have in mind as being the basis of a Socialist society.
As for the question of examination, I have already said that I think that it is one of the difficulties. I do not think that it is an answer to set up enormous comprehensive schools, where, I think, education will be worse. That is not the answer, simply to suggest that as one solution of the difficulty of the examination at 11.
I have already spoken, perhaps too long, partly because of the various interruptions with which I have had to deal, and so I would conclude, and I would do so by saying that in considering both our primary and our secondary education in its three streams I think we all want to give the very best chance to the new schemes that have been started; and I think we want to find out more and more as education in our schools goes on, whether it is up to the standard required and how we can improve it.
I am grateful to the Minister for having made inquiry into reading ability. Perhaps other inquiries will take place into other things. I do ask the Committee to consider the administrative machine. We have to consider whether the administrative machine is efficient. We must know more about the system of education and about the children. Then we can judge. It is for that reason that these debates we have each year on the Reports are of extreme value. I hope that by next year we shall have a report that deals more with the year 1950–51. Then we shall be able to see what progress was made in that time for providing the best possible education.

4.44 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): I could not help feeling that the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh) was a little gloomy and pernickety in her opening remarks, and she ended up in the same strain. She was most anxious to know more about 1950. I am sorry that she has not allowed us some sort of celebration. A jubilee celebration is not unnatural after 50 years of progress, with which she agrees. We wished to put the year 1950 into that context of 50 years of progress.
After all, except for the periods of the two wars, there have been annual Reports giving very great detail of the progress made during those 50 years; and I hope that, having devoted approximately 46 full pages out of 132 in the main Report to 1950, and 110 pages to charts and statistics relevant to 1950, we have not been guilty of any shortcoming in reporting on what we have done in the past 12 months.
I wish most sincerely to congratulate those who have been responsible for compiling this most interesting Report of 50 years' work in the educational field, but like the right hon. Lady, and, I am sure, like every Member of this Committee today, I am not concerned with this survey in this debate. What we are anxious to know about are the conditions at the moment and what they are likely to be in the immediate future as far as we can foretell—in the next five to 10 years. To begin with, there is one outstanding fact to which I wish to invite the attention of the Committee.
The right hon. Lady has spoken of the "bulge." Putting it in precise figures, by January of 1954 we shall have in the schools maintained and assisted from public funds one million more children to provide for than we had in January, 1947. Not only that, but we estimate that by January, 1959, the increase will reach 1,380,000. I am sure that the Committee will agree that these are very large figures. I wish to emphasise that they are additional to the extra numbers brought into the schools by the raising of the school leaving age from 14 to 15, which took effect four years ago.
It is this great increase in the school population which inevitably governs the rate of our educational progress today, and it will govern it for many years to come. This is a problem which, I must suggest with all respect, exceeds any of those which confronted our predecessors, and certainly the size of it was not contemplated, I think, during the discussions that produced the Act of 1944.
I am going to try today to deal with what the professional Press and hon. Members of this Committee would call the really urgent problems that face us at the Ministry of Education today. The right hon. Lady, quite properly, has laid considerable emphasis on the question of school building. This tremendous increase in the population of the schools has meant first of all a demand for 1,150,000 new primary and secondary school places in the seven years ending December, 1953.
In other words, we have to increase the stock of school places by about 20 per cent. in spite of all the other claims on the nation's resources, in spite of economic difficulties, and in spite of re-armament. In spite of all these things, I suggest we need not look back upon the seven years from 1947 to 1953 as seven lean years as far as the building programme to date is concerned, and so far as our plans to the end of 1953 have developed.
Let me trouble the Committee with the balance sheet as it is today. By 1st June last we had brought into use 525,000 of the 1,150,000 places required. On that date another 414,000 were already then under construction on the ground. This adds up to 939,000, and leaves us with 211,000 places to be provided either in

later projects started after 1st June this year or in minor projects.
Provided the present momentum of the school building programme is maintained —and we see no reason why it should not be substantially maintained—it is within the capacity of the local education authority to bring this balance of over 200,000 places into use by the end of the seven-year period. We are now beginning work on the programme for the three years after the end of 1953 and our present planning is aimed at starting about 180,000 new places each year— from 1953 to 1956, in order to meet demand as the so-called bulge in the school role moves up—from the infants to the junior schools and from the junior to the secondary.

Commander Maitland: This sounds rather an obvious question, but the Minister has often referred to this question of getting schools in the right places. Can the Minister assure the Committee that those places are being provided where there is a need for them? Quite often we are told that the total number of places will cover the total number of children coming in, but can he guarantee that the places will be provided where they are wanted? We should very much like an assurance on that.

Mr. Hardman: Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance. It is true that there has been some doubt as to whether places were to be spread where, in fact, they were needed, but I can give the assurance that we no longer have that doubt which has been expressed in the past in this House by my right hon. Friend and myself.
There is something else that we must bear in mind apropos the building programme, and that is that up to now four-fifths of all the new schools built or building have been primary schools, and now the balance is beginning to change and the main weight of the programme for the next few years will be on the secondary side.
Now, the right hon. Lady referred to the investment programme recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This year's allocation for my Ministry, for all forms of educational investment is £53 million compared with £45 million last year. We hit the investment target in 1950. So


far as we can foresee an analysis of progress on every job in the first six months of this year suggests that we shall hit the target in 1951.
The allocation for 1952 is £57½ million. No one would dispute on either side of the Committee that we could not do with more and that we could, in fact, use a bigger allocation. It is true, as my right hon. Friend and myself have said in this House in the last few weeks, that we should have to delay some of the jobs we were hoping to do, but the figures I have given show that so far from being cut the educational building programme is being increased in step with our growing needs.
In the programme for technical education—which again the right hon. Lady most properly emphasised as being of great importance to the future of our country—my right hon. Friend and I share the views of the Committee that facilities for technical education must be expanded and improved to enable the nation to get abreast of technological development and to increase industrial productivity. But here again, up-to-date figures are perhaps some consolation. By 1st June last, nearly £18 million worth of building for technical education was completed or under construction. Another £7 million worth in the 1951–52 programme was being prepared to start in the next six months, and this makes a total to date of £25 million. In the 1952–53 programme jobs commenced will be about the same as the current year's programme.
Apart from new schools and technical colleges there has been a great deal of work done in the less spectacular fields. I would refer to the improvements in the educational stock, as we know it. About £9 million worth of new work has been done and will continue to be done each year in other fields—training colleges, improvements and extensions to existing primary and secondary schools and work done to special schools. So I do not think that the picture calls for the gloomy forebodings that the right hon. Lady expressed from time to time in what I know she intended to be an extremely helpful speech.
Before I leave this aspect of the educational estimates—the question of buildings—I should like to make one other

point which is particularly appropriate in Committee of Supply. I wonder whether any Member of the Committee can think of anything which is costing 25 per cent. less this year than in 1949 without any loss of quality. This is true of the new schools that are being planned and built now. In fact, after making allowance for the changes in prices since 1939 we are now building more economically than we were before the war.

Mr. Howard Johnson: Before the war?

Mr. Hardman: That is what I meant to say.
Another of the problems that face my right hon. Friend and myself in the field of technical education is that the demand for it is insatiable, and in spite of the fact that local education authorities have, since the war, started work on provisions estimated to cost the £18 million which I have detailed. It is quite impossible to accommodate all the students without resorting to many kinds of improvised arrangements, which we all admit make teaching extremely difficult.
The right hon. Lady ventured upon a generalisation which I find is very hard to accept, that in the field of technical education practically nothing, or nothing, has been done. May I just give as an indication a few figures of what, in fact, is happening now? In 1939, 5,330 national certificates were awarded. Last year this-number had increased to 15,861—a threefold increase in a most important field in the training of technicians. At the craft level, where the City of London Guilds Institute operate, there were in 1939, 45,000 entries. Last year the figure was 75,600, and these figures do not include the large number of students who sat for the examinations of the regional examining unions. Again looking at the provision for technical education as a whole, the number of full-time students rose from 11,115 to 39,000 in the same period, while the total class entries rose from 2,700,000 to 3,400,000.
One part of further education—further education in its widest sense—that is rarely mentioned in these debates, but to which I want to make a passing reference this afternoon, is the extraordinarily good work being done by our art galleries and museums. Under the Ministry of Educacation Vote there are two, the Science


Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum, and I think that hon. Members knowing both those museums would wish to congratulate most warmly those responsible for the remarkable progress made in them, especially since 1945.
In the Victoria and Albert Museum in particular, in which I have a great personal interest the re-organisation of the galleries since the end of the war has been a very considerable achievement. For the first time in a national museum there has come into being a department to look after public and Press information.
We all know what memorable exhibitions have been held there, as well as in the Science Museum, but I should like to refer in particular to how the Victoria and Albert Museum, and of course other galleries in London, have been meeting the unprecedented increase of interest, especially among young people, in the visual arts—for example, the exhibition, in 1947, of miniatures, that glorious exhibition of French tapestries and Danish art treasures, and of course, the memorable contributions that we are witnessing this year to the Festival of Britain.
I cannot believe that there is any capital city in the world, except possibly Paris, that has so much magnificant art to show its people as we have in London at the present time. We have technical education at the one extreme and, at the other, education through the museums, through the libraries and through the art galleries. In that broad field of further education the Ministry are doing everything in their power to foster the greatest national enthusiasm, interest and support.
There is another problem which every Member of the Committee must look upon as an extremely grave one. That is the problem of premature leavers from the grammar schools. I should like briefly to give the Committee the picture as I see it. Nearly 25 per cent. of grammar school boys and girls leave before 16 years of age. Some 65 per cent. are leaving before 17 years of age. The percentage of leavers under 16 is, it is true, better than it was in 1938, when the percentage was 30, but I do not think that is anything to be very complacent about. It is true that 14,500 boys and 13,000 girls were at the grammar schools at the age of 17 in 1950, and those figures represent twice as many as in 1938, but the

whole picture is most disquieting and no complacency should be allowed.
I hope that Members of the Committee will help us here. For instance, are children being withdrawn from the grammar schools because of financial inability to keep them there, or because of the powerful effect of full employment and good wages available, particularly for young girls? Again the question can be asked: Is legislation compelling children to stay until they are at least 16 the answer? I know nothing of what that may mean from the point of view of the legal authorities, but I very much doubt whether higher education can be nourished by compulsion. Imagine the upper forms with children there by compulsion and feeling under a sense of grievance. I do not know of any solution to this problem except the patient missionary work of the schools. It would be extremely helpful if in the course of this debate there were an exchange of ideas on this extremely important crisis which faces the grammar schools.
It seems to me that one can link up that problem which faces the educational world today with the discussion which was begun this afternoon by the right hon. Lady upon the subject of the comprehensive school. I am here giving my personal point of view. As one naturally, in the House and in educational circles, meets many who have almost a fixation one way or another, it is necessary to make quite clear where one stands personally, whatever the official view may be. I think that I may be expressing both. I personally welcome plans for building a number of comprehensive schools.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am rather puzzled about the Parliamentary Secretary giving his personal views on this point. We are not to have the advantage of the Minister opening the debate; we have instead the advantage of the Parliamentary Secretary opening the debate, and I am completely defeated about what it is we are debating if, on the most controversial matter before us, we are told that what is being said from the Front Bench opposite is personal. I think that the Committee should have some explanation of what the Parliamentary Secretary meant by the use of that word.

Mr. Hardman: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need be so academically


indignant. One is giving an official view, but, at the same time, painting out that there is a personal view as well. I should have thought that it was to the advantage of the Committee that it should be known quite clearly and honestly where Ministers stand in regard to these problems. If the hon. Member does not like the word "personal" I will put it this way: I welcome plans for building a number of comprehensive schools, always bearing in mind that we want to help the children and the teachers and not simply to satisfy some particular doctrine or some particular plan.
In the development of education in these islands, we have always indulged in educational experiments, and there is no reason why we should not welcome this one, but it must be judged on its educational possibilities and its educational results and not by any other standard. If we do that, I am confident that we will get something new in our educational system, something which will be peculiarly our own, and something which may prove of very great value for future generations of children.
As the "Schoolmaster" said in an eminent article in last week's issue, unless a school is organised with the utmost regard to the differences of the children's personalities, it can mean a fight for existence for the many, the glorification of the few and an undue strain for some. On the other hand, because of the richness and variety of its life, it may give a real chance to each child to feel that he is good at something. It should be borne in mind —and this is something which we very often forget—that the small secondary school is itself under a very great disability. There must be many here who know some of the small rural grammar schools which have had very great difficulty in getting up to grammar school status.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: The comprehensive school has nothing to do with the small grammar school. The comprehensive school in the larger district will not be affected by what the hon. Gentleman is now saying about the country grammar school, if I may say so with very great respect.

Mr. Hardman: With equal respect, perhaps the hon. Member will wait until

I have linked this up with the grammar school. It seems to me that we should welcome this experiment in the comprehensive school, and it should be given every support on educational grounds alone.
It may be asked: Why is it today—and this is coming to the point which the hon. Member mentioned—so few proposals for comprehensive schools appear in local authority development plans? I know that some people think that it is because of some sinister undermining of democratic education on the part of Ministry officials or His Majesty's inspectors. There are two reasons, in my view.
First, the grammar school in the provincial towns of England and Wales is a much admired local institution. It is held in high esteem and regarded with warm affection. Moreover, it has become, particularly since 1945, a very democratic type of school. In recent years it has been the object of much local pride coming from people in all walks of life. On educational grounds, it makes a vitally important contribution to the professions and it trains, as we have described them, the brainy boy or girl. May I suggest that we tamper with this at its best at our peril, and in saying that I know I am supported by leading personalities of all parties in local affairs up and down the country.
There is the second reason, which is a cause of equal local pride in very many places, and that is the remarkable achievements of the old senior and central schools now operating in what we call the secondary modern school. In many ways they have gone a long way to solve so-called social difficulties, which some people think will disappear with the arrival of the comprehensive school. More important, the majority of secondary modern schools have built up an extraordinary strong esprit de corps, and they would heartily resent being swallowed up in some new pattern of education.
I have been to scores of secondary modern schools, where head teachers and staff have built up their own individual school societies. I am sure that is a cause of gratification to every member of the Committee. It is a new tradition with a proud place in our educational system, and I should be very loth to see it superseded. So in my view the official attitude of the Government to the comprehensive


school should remain as it has always been, at any rate in my experience, consistent with our educational traditions. By all means let us experiment with very big schools, with small rural comprehensive schools, with multilateral and bilateral schools and with modern two-teacher village schools for nurseries, juniors and infants wherever that is propitious and where we think this would be of the greatest value, but what I believe is that the Government will never say that uniformity in educational provision is either necessary or remotely desirable in this country.

Mr. R. A. Butler: If an authority concentrated on the comprehensive school as the main feature of its provision, would the Ministry object?

Mr. Hardman: We have had an example where an authority has emphasised this form of schooling as its main objective, and we want that experiment to go ahead; we wish it good will and hope for its success.
The right hon. Lady referred to another problem which is confronting us at the present time and that is the closure of village schools. From what has been written in the Press and from what has been said this afternoon, one might imagine that my right hon. Friend is about to embark on a slaughter of the innocents. At the outset, therefore, let me say that my right hon. Friend endorses without reservation the view that
the touch stone for the closing of any village school should not be administrative convenience or even cost, but the welfare of the village children.
That is what appeared in "The Times" leader of 12th July. Similarly, in the discharge of statutory function to give approval or otherwise to proposals for the closure of any school, it is my right hon. Friend's invariable practice
to withhold his consent to any proposal for closure which is hasty or unreasonable,
thus supporting the view from an article in the "New Statesman and Nation" written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler).
May I put the present position about the fate of small schools in country areas through a number of county development plans. I would point out that not in great urban areas, but more often than

not in quiet country towns they are in immediate touch with rural problems. A number of county development plans provide for closing a number of small schools over a period of years and for the children to go to schools which would be educationally better units. We know the problems especially of the rural school which is the one-teacher school. Can such a school be defended seriously in this Committee? Ought we not to consider the value of the canteen dinner as something of an improvement on the packet of sandwiches which, at any rate since I was at school, has been condemned by educationalists.

Mr. S. Marshall: Bread and jam.

Mr. Hardman: Yes, and are we going to suggest with our experience of school meals that it was not the best kind of meal to receive?
There is a shortage of teachers to be taken into account especially a shortage of women teachers. There is the great difficulty of recruiting teachers for small schools. Undoubtedly, there is virtue in the village school at its best, and in the devoted service which so many remarkable men and women have given to those village schools. But we must recognise that the children should come first, and where it is possible to provide them with modern educational provision, which is impossible in the small village school which they are attending, then every effort must be made to give them more up-to-date opportunities. Every proposal to close a school is carefully examined in the light of current conditions before it is approved, and whether it has been contested by the local people affected or not. I think that ought to be a firm enough guarantee for the right hon. Lady, who has raised this most important question.
There are still one or two points which I must refer to arising out of her speech. There is this vast problem of the supply of teachers. I suggest that the crucial question here is what is being done to provide for a continuing increase in the number of teachers, particularly women teachers. Again some figures might be of interest. Before 1939 approximately 4,000 women were admitted each year to the non-university training colleges. In 1948 there were 6,000, and in 1951, 8,000. We estimate that, if we can continue


recruitment and training at the present level, the number of teachers in primary and secondary schools will go on increasing at the rate of 4,000 a year, and this we estimate will enable us to contain the staff and standards of 1950.
But what about the filling of the 8,000 places in the colleges at the beginning of the next Michaelmas term? Questions have been asked in the House about this, and I should like to give the latest figures. On 1st June there were 1,000 vacancies still to be filled; today there are just under 700 and the colleges are filling at the rate of 40 to 50 places a week. No doubt the improvement in the grants available to students for training will help to fill the remaining places in good time and before the next academic year begins.
Another problem is that of the recruitment of graduate teachers, especially in mathematics and science, a problem which must be of considerable worry to those interested in education. Recruitment at the present time is not satisfactory. Again, this applies especially to women mathematics and science teachers. It is all the more serious when we look ahead at the increasing needs of the next few years. We are not satisfied with the present position, nor can we be until we can foresee a supply of graduates in these subjects adequate to meet the needs of teaching and other essential provisions. Doubtless the influence of salaries in this matter can often be exaggerated but I should like to give it as my view that if the provisions of the new Burnham Report are wisely administered by local authorities, as I am sure they will be, the salary level should be no bar to proper recruitment to this or to any other branch of the profession.
We might as well ask ourselves what value we are getting for all these improvements in education. Here is an estimated expenditure of £200,223,858 for the year 1951–52. I am confident that our children have never been healthier in body and in mind and have never been happier at school than they are today. Some particularly vocal Jeremiahs continue to raise the bogey of the illiterate 15-year-olds who are leaving school—children "who have had this expensive education out of the rates and taxes"—and are unable to add up simple sums or to spell correctly. I

think that a lot of adults who were brought up in the good old days are still pretty bad at spelling, because the English language is not easy.
We elders tend to exaggerate the follies and the ignorance of modern youth and to put an aura round our own past that depicts us all as little saints and scholars when we were at school. What matters most at 15 is a child's excitement and curiosity about life. If it has an exuberant vitality, a sense of humour and a sense of service, it can surely go a very long way in adult life.
I should like to refer the Committee to an essay which one of His Majesty's inspectors happened to pick up in a school in the Midlands. There are spelling mistakes in this essay but I suggest that there is a vitality and a sense of humour which show that though the writer may be illiterate, as far as spelling is concerned, this little boy of 11 years of age has certainly got a pretty broadened mind already. He is writing in his essay about Christmas gifts, and he says:
This Christmas I hardly know how I am going to get enough money to buy presents for everybody. I estimate, that I shall need at least one and six, but I shall only be able to save one shilling. I should never dream of only spending four-pence per person therefore only if my auntie sends (as she sometimes does) a bit of money (to be spent on presents) as a Christmas box, it is the only way out.
Still, to get on to something a bit more pleasant (to me) i.e. what I should like for Christmas. I should like, Although I dought wether I shall get it, (because that blank blank blank mirror cord decided to break i.e. a smashed clock an a busted mirror) an electric set, the reason why I should like that is quite simple, I go in for the electical line as you know" —
this, to the teacher—
(or should do if you read the compositions as well as marking them) and with this set I could (perhaps) make electric motors, buzzers, hells, induction coils and electromagnets"—
all spelt correctly—
which I could fix to a crane made by me with Meccano. I could also light up modles i.e. cars and planes.
Now to come back to earth i.e. what (I'm) i'm likley to get there is something I have got fall back on (thank goodness) namely an 'efty' owizer the reason for me tusing that is, err well it is, that all there is to it, see, Last Christmas was just the same, only then, it was the wireless that worked on the go bust principle. Back in the bygone days, otherwise last Christmas, I had my steam engine, hair glue (Brilcreme), a few (ton) books, a penknife etc.


There must be Members of the Committee who have read a great many essays written in school. This essay was from a junior school and by a boy of 11. It is easy to criticise the work done by a schoolboy, and to point to phonetic spelling—which would be approved by some Members of the House of Commons. It is easy to look at some exercise books and simple sums and to find that many of the sums are wrong. In my view, a lad of 11 who can write an essay like this, in spite of its spelling mistakes, has benefited from a modern education.
I hope that the Committee will, in the course of its deliberations, bring its collective mind to bear, especially upon some of these really serious problems which face us in the educational field today.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech, particularly to his remarks about the small boy whose essay he read out. I do not find myself filled with the same admiration about it but, in order that I shall not receive offensive letters from his parents, I shall not comment upon the essay. In the course of the few observations that I wish to make, I should like to take up some of the points which the hon. Gentleman has made in a somewhat optimistic canter over the educational field, which has included some of the museums and art galleries.
One of the most optimistic things he said, which I was glad to hear the Minister of Education confirm, was that the Ministry are now quite satisfied that they can meet the problem of the "bulge." Serving, as I do, on one of the largest local authorities, I know that we are not sure that we can solve the problem or that the Ministry can, either. The assurances from the hon. Gentleman will be very encouraging to that authority and to others also.
I should like to say something about the principle of equality of opportunity, which is basic to all the proposals which have been considered in relation to education as it applies to our democratic society. I would say this at the outset, that we have to consider: Opportunity for what? We are very inclined, when we consider the whole society with which we

are intimately concerned, to fail to realise that we may, in some of our endeavours to achieve an overall standard of education, sacrifice the very best. We are determined that the highest achievements in education which have been attained shall not be reduced in any circumstances.
I believe that three of the things which we must consider this afternoon are: first the atmosphere of our schools; secondly, the professional standard and the training of our teachers; thirdly, our curriculum. The one thing which is going to face this Government, and any Government that should follow them—it is not likely to be a Government with the same outlook—is the question of the financial demands that education makes upon us.
It is in the field of education that we can least afford to make economies. I speak as an educationalist. I realise that the Minister has to face demands for economies and that he will have to make economies, but I am certain that in the future planning of our educational structure we have to resist direct demands to reduce educational expenditure. I am certain that where economies have to be made, so far as the administration of education is concerned, they fit into a much larger survey of the reduction of expenditure on local government. I hope that survey will be undertaken in the near future.
Let me turn first, therefore, to the atmosphere of the schools. Again, I thought the hon. Gentleman was a little optimistic and painted rather a rosy picture of the building programme which the Government are undertaking. We all realise the problems with which the Government are confronted. I am glad the hon. Gentleman referred to the improvements of educational facilities which now exist, and that in many counties specific attention is being paid to the colour schemes of classrooms and the elimination of the drab and depressing atmosphere which exists in many of our schools. I have always been pressed by the educational pamphlet of the W.E.A. which said that:
The buildings are not merely the shell of the school, they arc an educational factor in themselves for good or ill; and they cannot he left out of account in any assessment of the quality of education either in the practical or in its emotional and social influence.
That is of the greatest importance,


especially as it applies to the organisation of the school.
The hon. Gentleman entered into a somewhat complex argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) on whether he was making a personal or official statement. I entirely endorse the demand made by my hon. Friend that what was said by the hon. Gentleman should be regarded for the purposes of this debate as an official statement. I thought what he said about the comprehensive schools was an extremely sound statement. I do not suffer from those fixations to which he referred, which I find have entered into our educational sphere from both sides.
One of the weaknesses and dangers today is that some of the more violent political tides have been flowing in upon education—

Mr. Cove: Mr. Cove indicated dissent.

Mr. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I can assure him there is no justification for doing so. Political bitterness has entered into the consideration of educational policy, and it is doing no good to anyone in education, least of all to the children.
The London County Council is one of the major authorities which is proposing, and has already undertaken, the experiment of the comprehensive school. If the London County Council were undertaking that experiment in the spirit of the Parliamentary Secretary, I would give my wholehearted support to what is being done. But we have had a statement from the Chairman of the Education Committee of the London County Council, as recently as the last debate at County Hall, that the policy of instituting comprehensive schools is, in the opinion of the majority party on the L.C.C.—which comes from the same side of the House as the hon. Gentleman—the only possible way of implementing the 1944 Act. To begin with, that is an irresponsible statement for anybody holding so high a position, because no one can say without experience whether it is sound.
Now let us take an example of what is being done in one specific case. The London County Council is laying hands on the Strand School, one of our finest grammar schools. Whether the hon. Gentleman and his friends like it or not,

I say again that it is a deplorable thing that there is animosity against a grammar school tradition emanating from the political circles with which the hon. Gentleman is indissolubly linked. The Strand School is a fine grammar school. The L.C.C. are to set up a large comprehensive school and, because there is no room on the ground, it will be nine storeys high. It is true that this problem will be overcome by lifts. I suppose the pupils will ring a bell—fourth floor for geography, fifth floor for history—and when we have the inevitable power cuts the class concerned will do history all day until the lift gets working again.
In order to establish this school, they will eliminate the playing fields. So in one stroke they start off a new experiment with all the conditions of success eliminated from the beginning. The things that will make this experiment succeed are primarily the spirit of community which must be basic in future generations. They will destroy that. Under those conditions also they will not be able to establish the house system. It is on the playing of games and taking part in community activities that success depends just as much as on the curriculum of the class-room.

Mr. Hardman: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, he will realise that there are grave site difficulties in London, and as far as the school to which he is referring is concerned, the children will have playing field facilities elsewhere.

Mr. Harvey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Of course we realise there are site difficulties. But he is saying, "Let us experiment." The essence of an experiment is to ensure that the conditions under which one is experimenting are satisfactory because, if they are not, the experiment will fail and will be discredited. Speaking from the point of view of the hon. Gentleman, not from my own, that is just what the friends of the hon. Gentleman do not want to happen. It is a policy of disaster. Why experiment there? Why not experiment somewhere else?

Mr. Hardman: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that experiments are taking place elsewhere.

Mr. Harvey: I am aware of it. But why have a bad experiment? However, I


do not want to draw the Committee into a detailed controversy over one issue, although it is indicative of a short-sighted attitude which is regrettable and indicates a political attitude to this situation which is not helpful and which cannot produce satisfactory results.
Now let me deal with the numerical issue. I heard hon. Members opposite murmur, as I have heard them murmur before, "Eton, 1,200." The conditions under which Eton operates are entirely different from the conditions under which it is proposed to operate these comprehensive schools. To begin with, Eton is a residential establishment. By having people lying together, by having them in satisfactory playing field conditions— though not altogether satisfactory housing conditions—it is possible at the same time to engender the very community spirit which will make for success. Therefore it is no good saying "Eton" as if that were the ultimate answer to the numerical question.

Mr. James Johnson: Would the hon. Gentleman compare like with like and give Manchester Grammar School, a day school in the heart of an industrial town with more than 1,400 pupils, with playing fields outside the urban centre? That is a much more fair and honest comparison if he wishes to reach a nonpolitical decision.

Mr. Harvey: If I may say so with respect to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), it was he who made the comparison of Eton.

Mr. Johnson: On a point of substance, we gave the hon. Member both Eton and Manchester and he takes Eton, obviously to suit his case.

Mr. Harvey: I pursued that case because it was the first one referred to. Now, I will refer to Manchester. I agree that there is there a highly satisfactory situation, but are we satisfied, from what the hon. Gentleman has said and from the proposals that were being made, that the 2,200 children will receive the same type of tuition and under the same conditions as Manchester has? The answer is that we are not satisfied. Until we can have comparatively sound conditions, it is dangerous to embark wholesale upon experiments of this sort, which are experiments with the lives and futures of the

children concerned. That is what is so serious.
Since we have got on to the subject of Eton, I should like to pass to the next matter, about which we should like to hear a little more from the Minister when he replies to the debate. What is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government to public schools? It is important that we should know. We know what our own attitude is. We believe that they have served the country well, that much that is best in our traditions has come from them, that they can be developed, and that the principles and ideals and methods which have been learned in their development can be infused with success into the major State system of education.
But today the public schools are facing a crisis. The headmaster of one of our leading public schools, who has some connection with me, has recently been accused of being a "pedagogic trojan horse"—a highly indigestible state to be in—because he said that economically the public schools were in very grave danger: first, because the running costs were too high for them to maintain, and secondly, because the fees were automatically going too high for parents to meet.
That is true. It is no good merely calling people "pedagogic trojan horses "—"Cassandra." I think, would be a more appropriate term. What we have to do is to decide what is to be our attitude to this system. Are we going to provide proper facilities for these schools to continue and to enable more people to get advantages from their system, or are the Government going to make a straight attack and to pursue a policy of attrition which will undermine their future existence? It is highly necessary that the Government should state clearly and firmly their policy with regard to this type of school, so that we on this side know where we stand.
Now, I turn briefly to the question of teachers. I do not think that there is a more highly skilled body of people who are more disproportionately paid for their skill. This is a subject with which both sides of the Committee must deal, and deal with fairly, because unless we give the proper rewards for skill we will not get recruitment. I am a little surprised, as are many others on both sides of the


Committee, at what happened when the new Burnham awards were made, because although we did not expect that equal pay would immediately be forthcoming, we did expect that the differential between the pay of men and women teachers would begin to be reduced if the policy for equal pay eventually was to be established. We should like to know what inspired the Minister in agreeing to these scales.
It is true that in a very large number of cases schoolmastering is a vocation. But vocation is not enough. A man cannot live purely on his vocation. I have the very greatest sympathy with the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, who have the utmost difficulty in living under modern conditions and standards of living.

Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. Member will appreciate, of course, that whilst we welcome his remarks, the only Government that ever reduced the salaries of teachers was from his side of the Committee.

Hon. Members: And why?

Mr. Harvey: It is regrettable that so intelligent a man as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), should seek to make purely political capital out of this debate—[Interruption.] —because he should have learned from experience. We on this side are looking to the future—and I am told that that is a very popular phrase with hon. Members opposite at election time.
I particularly welcome the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh), who led the debate from this side, on the subject of methods of instruction. There is, I feel, a very genuine tendency on the part of many teachers to assume that these so-called "activities" can be put in the place of straightforward education. But that is not the case. I realise that under modern conditions and problems of training it very often is much easier to teach children "activities," but at the same time, from the point of view of the children, it is more important that they should be educated in basic subjects. This tendency to which I have referred is due partly to the problem of training with which young teachers today have to deal.
I should like to refer now to the curriculum. There has been a decline in the classical tradition. There has been a change in our attitude to the three R's. I believe that that is thoroughly sound, but when we depart from old methods of approach, from old systems which have not been found entirely lacking in success, we have to make quite certain that what we do in their place is equally satisfactory. That is one of the tests which the modern educational system has yet to face.
I do not believe that at present we can escape the conclusion that in its principles the 1944 Act is right, but that in its general practice there is a real danger that the whole broad standard of education may decline. That is something which all educationalists must face, and they must do so fairly and squarely, without a great many political arguments, which, frankly, have nothing to do with the case.
Secondly—and this goes with the question of the size of classes, which, of course, is tied up with the building question—if we believe in the development of our citizens, we must get down sanely and intelligently to the early analysis of the problems of children. A great deal of nonsense is talked—I use the word advisedly—about psychiatry and psychoanalysis, but it is a fact that many lives have been warped, embittered and ruined through misunderstanding at an early age.
We all know that one of the greatest desires of a child in its early days is to-be normal, like other children. If children suspect some abnormality or difference— little points, about having, for example, a differently coloured raincoat or differences in conduct or behaviour; little physical defects, and nervous defects in particular, which could easily be remedied—children become worried and concerned. If these things are misunderstood or mishandled, or if, for instance, a child is held up to derision, this sort of thing leads to incalculable damage. The teachers must be trained to deal with these problems, but they cannot possibly be expected to deal with them if they have too many children in any one class.
I was glad that the right hon. Lady referred to further education, because education never stops. The idea that once the doors of the school have closed education is over, is a fallacy which cannot be accepted by any party.
If we are to see that our educational system measures up to the democratic standards which I am certain we all intend it should reach, we must first accept in its fullest implications the importance of the individual. That is why I have doubted very seriously the methods in which the comprehensive schools have been set up, and why I have doubted some of the attitudes which have been applied to the mass forms of education during the past years.
Secondly, we have to ensure that what is best is the standard towards which we are always aiming and not try to drag everything down to a general moderate level, because if we do that we shall find that we as a country, who have to compete so hard for our daily bread with the other nations of the world, will soon find ourselves bad competitors and then there will be little opportunity for which to have equality.
Thirdly, we have to concentrate, I am certain, on raising the professional status and standard of our teachers. Finally, we have to endeavour in the whole range of our education to breed to the fullest extent a sense of community and to ensure that in our educational system we are indeed training our children to become useful citizens of a free democracy.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I welcome the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey). He seemed rather shocked when I made a political intervention, which I freely acknowledge to have been political, but the whole course of his speech was shot through with rather shoddy political points. He will forgive me if the word
"shoddy" is a little hard, but I wanted to indicate that they were not very good points and not up to the standard we expect to hear when someone is going all out to give a smack at the other side.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh) raised many interesting questions when she addressed the Committee this afternoon, and we were all grateful for the obvious care she had taken to wade through the Report. I was sorry she had not finished reading the Report with the same enthusiasm as I did, for I find in the chronicle of progress during these past years a great

message of encouragement for the years that are before us.
As one who has been a practical schoolmaster, I believe that there is a dual aim running like a golden thread throughout the service of education. Firstly, there is character training. In that there is no political issue. We are all agreed that character training is of the first importance in the schools of this country. That will be pursued by the indirect method, more by what the teacher is than by what he says, more by his personal conduct— which is watched very carefully by the children—than by any of the lessons he might give. Secondly, there is the question of instruction, which will be pursued by' the direct method.
It is well for us to pause every now and then and to remember with gratitude the teachers of the country who so patiently and steadfastly are seeking to influence the character of the rising generation. I shall always remember an experience of mine when I was in Greece four years ago talking to an old Greek patriarch. The Greeks are so polite, almost like the Welsh, and, in trying to pay a compliment to the people of this country, this old Greek patriarch said to me, "Mr. Thomas, when we make a promise which we consider really binding we say 'On an Englishman's word of honour.' "Nothing could be a finer tribute to the people of this country, unless he had said, "A Welshman's word of honour."
I am trying to make the point that it is the character of our people that has, made this country great and that what we believe makes us what we are. It is therefore clear that the importance of the schoolmaster or schoolmistress cannot be overestimated. I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, East, that we cannot over emphasise the importance of the quality of our teachers; we dare not overlook the necessity to see that we have them forthcoming in adequate numbers, or our responsibility to see that the teachers have the tools with which to get on with the job—not in a squalid fashion, but in dignity and with the best results.
I think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was rather complacent in saying we could maintain the staffing figures of 1950. It is true that we went on to look at the wider vista, but the


staffing figures for 1950 are not very good and, with the size of classes the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side revealed, we cannot but be profoundly disturbed. It is with these matters in mind that I ask the Committee to consider certain disturbing features.
First, there is the question of the supply of the right type of teacher. Anyone will not do for a teacher. The man who finds himself a teacher but is obviously unfitted for that task is not only in a miserable position himself, but is a dire burden on the education service, and we are concerned that the right type of person shall come into the profession.
This afternoon my hon. Friend referred to the number of children who leave school at the age of 16. More than half the children of the country leave school before they reach the age of 16. I believe that only 32,000 children stay in our secondary grammar schools until they reach the age of 18–32,000 to supply the needs of all the commercial, industrial and professional claims there are in this country. The teaching profession alone will require between 8,000 and 9,000 of these youngsters a year, and it is quite clear that if the needs of the country are to be met, we must have more children staying in the secondary grammar schools over a longer period.
My hon. Friend posed certain questions. He asked whether maintenance grants had anything to do with it, or whether the question of full employment was the deciding factor in those children leaving school. I am of the opinion that it would be an undoubted help if there were an improvement in the number and in the amount of maintenance allowances for pupils remaining at school above the statutory school leaving age.
Then there was this question of the encouragement of students to go to college. Hon. Members on all sides who are fair minded—and we all claim that for ourselves—will agree that my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary have every reason to be proud of what they have succeeded in doing with regard to grants to students going into colleges. There has been a tremendous and remarkable improvement in this direction. But there are local authorities who are still very reactionary. I quote the example of Somerset.
Somerset have decided that 33 awards only shall be given for boys going to university this year. That is not even the number of secondary grammar schools in the county. A child unfortunate enough to be born in Somerset when he might have been born in Glamorganshire— despite the other natural advantages that would accrue—will suffer in Somerset in a way which is a slur upon our good name as a community. I believe that an authority like Somerset is failing to make proper educational provision for its young people, and that action ought to be taken by the Minister.
With regard to recruitment for the profession, I wish also to refer to the question of equal pay. It is monstrous that we still have to argue this question in respect of women teachers. Everyone who has been in the profession acknowledges that the women are if anything more conscientious than the men. The women certainly go all out in their work. People ought to be paid not because they are married or single but for the work that they do. If we start paying people because they are married or single we shall have to start paying them according to the size of the family, and we shall never know where salary rates are to be decided.
There is also the question of the teacher at his job. Every Member knows that the cost of the school books and school equipment has increased substantially during the past few years. It has increased with the general rise in the cost of living. But the capitation grants by local authorities to the schools have not increased accordingly. Indeed, they have in many cases been reduced in the past 12 months. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that in the case of many authorities there is a wide gap or distinction between the capitation grants of their secondary modern schools and their secondary grammar schools.
What humbug it is to talk of parity of esteem between the secondary modern school and the secondary grammar school if only half as much is to be given for the child in the secondary modern school as for the child in the secondary grammar school. I know that this is a question which is largely decided by the local authorities, but my hon. Friend might help us by drawing their attention to our feeling on this question.
In the few moments remaining to me, I wish to ask the Committee to give attention to the question of education in the Principality of Wales. Here, indeed, is an encouraging picture, for we have had more schools built since the war than we had built in the 20 years between the wars —either more schools or major extensions to the schools. This reflects great credit on the local authorities concerned; it has not been easy for them. Some of that credit is also reflected on my hon. Friend.
The most useful development in postwar Wales has been the establishment of the Joint Education Committee, and there is every evidence that in that little country we are now on the threshold of a new progressive era. This Joint Education Committee has tackled problems on the basis of co-operation between local authorities, problems that could not have been tackled adequately by the individual small authorities of the Principality.
For instance, the first school in Wales for maladjusted children has been opened at Chepstow. We have tackled the problem of the handicapped child—the deaf and the partially deaf—with a new school at Llandrindod Wells. Educationally sub-normal children are being catered for at the first wholly Welsh speaking boarding school at Treborth Hall in Bangor. This is also a tribute to the work of the Committee. The Joint Committee has, I believe, also accepted responsibility for the maintenance of the National Youth Orchestra of Wales. All this is a tribute to the co-operative efforts of these Welsh authorities, and it holds out great hope for the future.
I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey this query to the Minister who is to reply to the debate: In view of the substantial autonomy given to the Welsh Department, in view of the progress being made by the Joint Education Committee, what conceivable reason is there for the Welsh Department still to be stationed in Whitehall? Why should it not be transferred to the Principality?
The autonomy of the Welsh Department is substantial, its sympathetic understanding is real but its location is just crazy. There is no reason why it must stay in London, and it would be a very graceful gesture on the part of the Ministry to transfer that Department to the Prin-

cipality and let it carry on its work from there.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Which end of the Principality?

Mr. Thomas: There is no doubt in my mind what I would say—

Mr. Cove: Cardiff.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he never fails to give a wise lead to the House.
I conclude by saying that in this age of mass propaganda, television, radio, the cheap daily newspaper and the cinema, the prospect for the educationist is frightening. The emphasis for the educationist must always and forever be upon the individual, upon the development of individual personality, upon the contribution which the individual will make to the community.
I earnestly trust that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will bear in mind that the teachers cannot do the job we rightly ask them to do unless they are given smaller classes, more efficient equipment and better capitation grants and encouragement is given to the right type of young person from our secondary grammar schools, and, indeed, from other schools, to enter into what is for me, and always will be, one of the finest professions in which any person can have the privilege to serve.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: It would be helpful if the Minister, when he winds up the debate, could clear up one point on the subject of the comprehensive school. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he favoured variety but that if a local education authority adopted the policy of building comprehensive schools as an experiment he would welcome it. What was not quite clear to me was whether, if a considerable number of education authorities adopted the same policy as a result of a bias in favour of that type of school and not merely as an experiment, the hon. Gentleman would still hold the same view.

Mr. Hardman: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to make this point. Comprehensive schools are not necessarily all of the same kind or of the same size. It would be possible for one autho-


rity, for example, in a rural area, to propose one kind of comprehensive school as an experiment which would be quite different from the kind which would be proposed, for example, by the L.C.C.

Mr. Wade: I hope that the overriding view is that which has been expressed, namely, that the Government are in favour of variety of schools in our educational system.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh) referred in her opening remarks to the Report. I agree with her comments. It would have been better if we had had a survey of the first half of the century, and a separate shorter Report for the year 1950. I do not suggest that this is a major criticism. No doubt a great deal of trouble has been taken to produce this excellent Report, and those responsible are to be congratulated.
The right hon. Lady also stated that we must consider the point of view of the child. We all agree with that statement. I would add that we must also consider the point of view of the parent. I should like to make special reference to certain problems of particular concern to parents. I do not suggest that there is any clash between the interests of the parent and the child on the one hand and the interests of the teacher on the other. Obviously, there may sometimes be a clash between parent and child; but the supply of an adequate number of teachers with fair and adequate remuneration is of benefit to the child and, indirectly, to the parents.
I think that fair-minded parents of all classes appreciate and welcome the great strides which have been made during the last 50 years, as indicated in this Report. I think that most fair-minded parents welcome the steps towards greater equality of opportunity. While it is natural that parents should be concerned about the prospects of their own children, I think they would subscribe to the ideal of greater equality of opportunity. Obviously, there can be no complete equality of opportunity. The right hon. Lady referred to the Report "The Adolescent Delinquent Boy." which states:
In many cases the parents of delinquents are of poor intelligence and behave extremely foolishly. Many, through either ignorance or poor mentality, are quite incapable of rearing

their children wisely. Boys, from such homes have 'dragged themselves up,' their social education has been obtained largely in the streets, and they have had undesirable standards set for them in the home. Many parents set such a poor example in honesty and truthfulness, in self-restraint and in perseverance, that the surprise is not that the boys have such low standards, but that their standards are as high as they are.
All hon. Members will agree that the children of such parents have not the same opportunity as the children of some other parents. The children of parents of high character and intelligence have an advantage over the children of parents who do not possess the same qualities. The most the community can do is to try to remove those "material environmental handicaps" referred to in the Report and to provide as much equality of opportunity as is possible.
What I fear, and what I think many parents fear, is that in striving towards this ideal of equality of opportunity we may create new anomalies and new inequalities. The path towards equality of opportunity is strewn with difficulties. For example, we have not escaped from the enslavement of the examination system. Especially in the higher ranges of education, as the numbers trying to get places increase, the competitive aspect of the examination increases. I cannot claim to have the honour of being a member of the teaching profession, although I have been an examiner for a number of years as well as an examinee, and now, as a father of four children, I am learning to appreciate the point of view of the parents.
The examination system is, at best, a necessary evil. There are more children and parents today than ever before who are worried about examinations and the consequences of success or failure. This worry about examinations and tests starts when the child is at an early age—namely, 11. I am well aware that these selective tests for the purpose of deciding which children shall pass to a secondary school are not supposed to be examinations in the strict sense of the term. They are something in the nature of intelligence tests for the purpose of selecting certain children, but it is very difficult to make parents understand that they are not just examinations.
Many parents are very worried about this question, and some children are worried also. I know of a child who has


failed and, as far as I can judge, her failure was very largely due to nervousness. The effect, after she had become aware of her failure to pass the test, has been to make her quite ill. She has nightmares every night. That may be an exceptional case. I do not know how many incidents of that nature there are, but it suggests that these tests may have a harmful psychological effect on children. Judging by the report from the school, she was a child of intelligence.
I do not propose to make a frontal attack on this system of the test at the age of 11, because I know that it is much easier to criticise than to suggest an alternative. I should like to know, however, to what extent reliance is placed on reports from the school. Does the result depend solely upon the test? To what extent, if any, is account taken of the opinion of the master or mistress of the school from which the child comes? In the case I mentioned, the report on the child suggests that she was fit to pass to a secondary school.
I wish to mention a further anomaly which may not affect the parents of so many children, but it is a problem which has increased in the last few years. There are parents who, by virtue of the father's job, have to move about from place to place. I suggest that, in some cases at any rate, the children of such parents could best be provided for at boarding schools. Quite apart from the cases of children of broken homes and unsuitable parents, there are children who would get considerable benefit from education at a boarding school.
I believe that greater use could be made of the existing facilities for taking up free places at independent public schools. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest. I am a governor of a small independent public school. Like many of these schools, it was created for a specific purpose—for the benefit of sons of Non-conformist ministers. The difficulty today, owing to the increased costs of education and increased salaries, to which we do not object for one moment, is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide the places for sons of ministers at a very small fee.
What is one to do? I do not think that it would be right to take only fee-paying children or, on the other hand, to abolish the independent schools. The independent

schools have a valuable part to play in our educational system. I do not make a special claim for the sons of ministers, but I suggest that this is the type of case where education authorities might make grants for the children to go to boarding school. Unfortunately, if my information is correct, some education authorities seem to assume that it is only the children from broken homes or with unsuitable parents who should be considered for grants to enable them to go to boarding school.
My third illustration is taken from a higher stage—the university. There would appear to be a great variety and diversity in the amount of the grants which are made to students. I am all in favour of variety, diversity and scope for originality in our educational system, but it does not follow that there need be variety and diversity in the amount of the grants to students, many of whom are working together in the same university and having to face the same problem of the high cost of living and the expense of books.
Under the Further Educational Training Scheme for ex-Service men, that does not arise, but I understand that that scheme is coming to an end. It is true that there is an increasing number of State scholarships, and I understand that in the case of open scholarships the Ministry are making up the amount to the level of State scholarships, but there are still many students who depend upon the generosity of the local education authorities.
As I understand it, there are very great variations in the amount of the grants, according to the district in which the student happens to live, and I am wondering whether there could not be some modification of the Further Educational Training Scheme in order to extend it for the benefit of students other than ex-Service men, so that there might be some levelling up of these grants. Furthermore, there are, at most of the universities, trained staffs qualified to deal with the question of the amount of the grants to students, and possibly they might be used in applying this modified scheme which I propose.

Mr. Hardman: They are already used by the university college authorities in assessing the grants.

Mr. Wade: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will inform the Committee on the matter. I understand that that does not apply to decisions as to the amount of a grant to be made by local education authorities.

Mr. Hardman: No.

Mr. Wade: There is a good deal of feeling amongst students on this subject, and I am only passing forward to the hon. Gentleman the information given to me, when I say that a number of potential teachers are deterred from going to the universities because of this inequality and inadequacy of the grants in the case of those who do not receive State scholarships.
In conclusion, I am only too well aware that many of these problems would be solved if there were more money available from the Treasury, if there were more materials for the building of schools and extending universities, and if there were more manpower available to the teaching profession.
If 'ifs' and 'ans' were pots and pans, There'd be no use for tinkers' hands.
I will not go so far as to suggest that if we had all the money, materials and manpower required, there would be no use for a Minister of Education. I have no doubt that he would have other problems to deal with, but his task would be much the easier. I acknowledge that fact, but I do urge that, in advancing towards greater equality of opportunity, we should endeavour to eliminate all avoidable hardships and inequalities, and that, as far as is humanly practicable, we should strive to see that the benefits of our educational system are spread not only widely but with the greatest possible fairness and recognisable justice.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: Everybody understands education, which is no doubt the reason why we always have such large audiences for these debates. I hope I may be forgiven, as one who has been professionally, and still is, concerned in that trade, if I make some disjointed remarks—disjointed because I hope to be shorter if I do not try to make a composition of the notes which I have taken of earlier speakers.
I should like to begin by taking pleasure in being in agreement with the

unanimous Liberal Party today. Since I had coined that phrase in my subconscious, the Liberal Party has doubled in strength, and I do not know now whether it is still unanimous upon this point. I should like to agree with the Liberal spokesman, anyhow, in some of the things he said, and I entirely agree with him about the role of parents. It is common form in these debates to say that the child is what matters most, but, of course, "the child" in that sense does not exist, and it is very easy to say that what you are caring about is the child when what you are really caring about is what the teacher, or, infinitely worse in my judgment, what the education secretary, tells you about the child.
On the other hand, I believe that all the best scientists and philanthropists now are coming back to the view held by my own grandmother and my old nurse and all the other stupid and illiterate people 60 years ago, that any family, it is almost true to say, any family, however bad, is a better background for any child than anything else can be, so long as it is his own family. If that is so, those of us who say that what matters in education is the child ought to remember that what we are really saying is that the parents are the people who ought to have the most say, and I hope we all do take that view.
I agree also with the Liberal spokesman about examination worries. I hope hon. Members will not think I am being partisan or trying to be funny in this, but when I am going to be partisan I will tell the House, and when I do not tell them. I hope they will not think that I am being partisan. Worrying about examinations is a horrible thing. One of the few bits of learning in the sense of knowing things off by heart which I have, and which I would bet I know two other hon. Members have got, is that I do know which are the seven deadly sins.
I can never remember exactly which are the seven principal virtues, although I once learned a rhyme for that purpose. The worst of the deadly sins, I know well by experience—whereas I believe it is not theologically considered to be extremist or the most primary, it really is the worst in the sense of punishing you all the time, in this world and the next—the worst sin is an untranslatable one, which may perhaps be a tribute to the English: it may be so rare in England that we have


never had a word for it, but in Latin it is called accede which is often translated "sloth" but more nearly means" defeatism."
Defeatism comes into the consciousness through one thing almost more than by any other method—and I am not being at all funny when I say that in my judgment one of the main reasons why France has not been so great a country, especially militarily, of recent years, as she once was—though I hope and pray she soon will be again—I am not being at all funny, nor in my judgment exaggerating, when I say that a large part of that has been examination worry, because they have been in this matter a generation or so ahead of us—if that is the word to use, in progress in this matter; almost every French family is doomed to frightful worry as to whether little Toto or little Jojo is going to get over the next hurdle.
The wretched child goes through its childhood continually hag ridden with this horrible obsession, that perhaps it will ruin the whole family. I beg hon. Gentlemen when they are talking about equality of opportunity to consider the very great intellectual and logical difficulties. It is easy for me to contemplate without envy the superiority and comparative wealth of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, so long as I know it is due to an accident of birth, but if I knew that all their manifest superiorities over me were wholly due to merit, I might find it beginning to be a little difficult to bean.
They talk about children who do not get into the most fashionable type of school being resentfully conscious of inferiority to other children. But the more we make everything turn on school competition—that must be by way of examination of one sort or another however we change the name of examination— and the more we make that the only test, the more we run the risk of resentment.
Do not think I am talking against equality of opportunity. Nobody could believe in it more firmly than I do or owe more to it than I do. All my life, since 13 years of age, I have lived however fraudulently, on examination successes; and I am not boasting, I think I have had more opportunity than anybody here, I do not think anybody has tried harder than I have to help children of all ages from 13 upwards to scholarships. Do not

think I am running down equality of opportunity, but it wants a lot of thinking about.
I think there ought to be equality of opportunity in the sense that every child ought equally to have opportunity and we ought to try to see that that is so. But I do not think we can give every child an equal chunk of opportunity as one might give them an equal quantity of milk or an equal 2½ ounces of cheese, or whatever it might be. I do not believe it is possible to do that, and in that connection I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider something which I am going to say now.
Almost everyone so far has spoken about the terrifying increase in the amount of money spent both centrally and locally on education. It is quite right that we should speak about that because we all know now that the phrase "meaningless symbol" is worthless nonsense, and we should know that money is not a meaningless symbol, if there could be such a thing, but means taking the attention, the effort, of people. That is what it means in the last analysis.
Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether it is right for education to take so much of the attention of so many people as it does at present. I do not want to argue against that, but I want to ask hon. Members opposite to make an effort to get into the habit of imagination which we have all got into, over such matters as re-armament. We have got into the habit of imagination of saying it is not a matter of saying we will have £5,000 million—besides a monetary budget, we must have a manpower budget, a timber budget, a steel budget. We have, got into that habit in some things, but we are still a long way from getting into it in education matters.
It is perfectly plain that we cannot have equality of opportunity in the sense that every child shall have an equally large opportunity of doing equally well in both senses of doing well unless we can have equally good teachers, and plenty of them, say, one per 20 children in every school. That is a most frightening thought, because it makes almost all the arguments I have heard, from both sides of the Committee, in the last 15 or 16 years about what is the purpose of public education logically and intellectually disreputable.
There are a few figures in this connection which we ought to think about. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if they are wrong. These figures I hastily picked up where I could and I will, of course, take his word for if he tells me they are wrong. I am told that in the last few years that there has been among teachers in training a decrease of from 66 to 55 per cent, in the number of those who got firsts or seconds in honours in the universities. That looks a bit as if the tendency were going the wrong way.
If we are to keep the present percentage of 77 percent. of graduate grammar school teachers and are to get an average of one teacher to every 20 pupils in secondary schools then, I am told, we shall need another 10,000 graduate teachers before 1960. I am also told that that means that the graduate teachers in training at any one time ought to be something over 3,000 and that one-third or rather more of that lot ought to be mathematicians or scientists, and that more than 70 per cent. of the whole lot ought to have got firsts or seconds in honours.
I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to put this question to themselves. Suppose that budget in teacher manpower which I have just very roughly indicated is to be achieved in 1960, from where shall we get the intelligent chaps whom we want to be stockbrokers, average adjusters, and all the rest of it? Where are they to come from? It is usual to ride off at that moment and to say, "So you see we want a lot more universities and university graduates." But we are not going to get those very quickly, and it is pure assumption that if we got them, we should get graduates as good as we ever got before.
We cannot increase the undergraduate population, at the brain and character level to which we are used, unless we increase the don population in the same proportion, and whether there are enough people to be got for either purpose, without a very disadvantageous weakening of other professions is a great question. I do not know the answer to this, but it is a great question, and I hope that I have put it accurately and fairly.
When sitting on the opposite side of the Committee as well as when sitting on this side, I have more than once begged

the Ministers responsible to make a thorough study of the matter at some time, and to let us have the benefit of their researches. But so far my prayers, as, unfortunately, my prayers when addressed to higher quarters, have not had the success which, I will not say I deserve, but which at any rate I desire. The Parliamentary Secretary said one or two things about which I should like to comment. We had the phrase "problem and crisis of early leavers." I wish we could get out of using the words "problem" and "crisis," because they are always misused. "Problem" always gives the impression that there is a defined problem, and what is more, that when one gets hold of the teacher's copy of the book one will find the answer at the back of it. "Crisis" is almost always used as a continuing thing, and the "early leaver" is not a crisis. We have got to think about this.
I had a brother—hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may be sorry to know that, but they need not worry because he is no more, and since so long that I can bear to think of it without any pain to myself —who was quite as intelligent as I, and in every other respect much better. He was very good at games and a very good athlete, at all of which I was frightfully bad. But he was absolutely determined, round about his 15th birthday, that nothing on earth would induce him to stay at school, and that if he had to stay he would make everybody jolly sorry, in much the same way as Queen Elizabeth said when we begged her to marry.
Hon. Gentlemen will remember that she said that if she did marry somebody she would make us all sorry for it. My mother, very sensibly, let him stop going to school. I am sure that no amount of worry by civil servants, Ministers, or schoolmasters about making it agreeable and attractive for boys to stay at school after their 15th birthday will do us much good, when they do not want to. There is neither social nor political controversy in this, although some people sometimes try unnecessarily to make such controversy.
Here there is controversy, I admit— about salary being no bar to recruitment. We have had that, I think, from the Minister, and unless a better answer can be put to the question I proposed, about the


proportion of population fit to be teachers, than has yet been put, then no salary, therefore, can really get enough schoolmasters. I think that is a true and fair answer and that education will be always in large measure a sweepstake and most children will be very lucky if they run across one or two teachers that suit them in the course of their education.
We ought to see whether we can find the administrative means and special salary levels to get as high a proportion of ability into teaching as other professions can afford to let us have. I ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite to consider carefully whether it is not necessary for that purpose to get a wider spread between the not very successful schoolmaster and the very successful one. I had occasion some years ago to inquire, and I got the best information that then could be got, what was the average income, after paying expenses, of a practising solicitor in London, and I was amazed to be told it was something under £400 a year. I may have been told wrong or I may be remembering it wrong, but it was certainly something very low.
The average income of a practising barrister, I imagine, is not very high, but what takes men of first-rate abilities into a profession is—partly of course— a sense of vocation. A man feels, "I am sure I can do that particular job very well." It is partly that and the two things overlap and are not generally distinguishable between each other—the prospect of reward. In so far as this second is concerned, one buys much more ability into the profession by putting one or two big prizes into it than by raising everybody all round who go into it.
I am not saying whether it is a good or bad thing it should be so. All I am saying, and I say it dogmatically because I am sure no honest man will deny it, is that one buys more ability for the money in that way than in any other. Again, I do not know. It is a thing we ought to drag to the top and consider carefully in public, whether there is enough ability in the schoolmastering profession, and if not whether more could not be got by more prizes nearer the top.
That brings me to a matter very much connected with it and that is the relation between different local education authorities. It is very remarkable how they vary in this matter of reward. It seems to

stick in my head that Essex, for long my own county and still next to my own, is particularly generous—but I may have that wrong. Some counties are treating men generously and some are not. That makes very difficult movement from one place to another.
I have often said to pupils of mine who have thought of schoolmastering not to go to public schools but to secondary schools, in the usual sense of secondary schools. I thought they would do better. They would get a headmastership quicker, and it is sometimes more fun: but the thing sometimes happens to go wrong. Sometimes it happens because of politics, and sometimes it happens because the chap is in some respect no good. If he sticks too long in one county, no other county will take him. That is more complicated by this variation in rewards, though I do not want to abolish a degree of local independence in this matter.
Along with that goes a lack of reciprocity treaties between local education authorities about their treatment of scholars. I have fought this over and over again for 30 years, and the position is now better than it was. I have written literally 40 to 50 letters in order to get money for a boy that he was not going to get, for some footling reason such as that his father had moved 300 or 400 yards across some imaginary line.
It has been put more or less right in the course of the last few years. But it is not right yet, and a very considerable amount of human unhappiness happens; either of human unhappiness for the boy and parents if the tutor is not actively conscientious or if he is, misery and unhappiness to him, because he spends half August writing unnecessary letters to find money. I hope the Minister will look again into that matter fully; because it really wants much more looking into.
I come now to three points of controversy, and I must hurry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If hon. Members below the Gangway wish to make rude noises, I will pause now and let them get them over. These three are going to be controversial. First, adult education. I wish people would not say, I am afraid that my hon. admired and indeed revered Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) said it, that education goes on from cradle to grave. If one means


by education all the formative and well-tending things that happen to one when one uses the word education that is what it means, but then education is useless to me. I wish people would not say that.
How much of adult education is education in the honest sense? I was happening to lunch with somebody who knew a great deal about this. I asked whether it would be a wild exaggeration to say that 90 per cent., more or less, of education had a strong party-political tinge. He said it would be a wild exaggeration. I said,
"Seventy per cent.?" He said, "I think that would be an exaggeration." I said, "Fifty per cent.?" He said, "You would be quite safe at 50 per cent." I think one would and the Parliamentary Secretary, who laughs, knows perfectly well one would, none better. We get these continual complacent speeches about adult education. It is a very difficult thing to go into it and everybody who knows anything about it considers it is high time we had a deep look into that.
I notice that the Blue Book had an amusing phrase—I do not think it was intended to be amusing. It is a badly written book, if I may say so, since I have been defending the examination system. It is about the bodies that manage adult education. The Blue Book says they are
… (technically known as 'responsible bodies') …
That means they have no responsibility at all. Nobody really inquires into exactly what they are doing, and nobody knows. To the things about which I am being offensive, add U.N.E.S.C.O. We are long overdue for some real explanation of what U.N.E.S.C.O. has done. All the Blue Book tells is about a desert being made to blossom like the rose somewhere, but nothing at all about education.
The next thing is comprehensive schools. I was delighted to hear that the Minister was interested in them without any political inference. It may be the prejudice for comprehensive schools had nothing political in it. That moves the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) a long way from his party, but if he will read the party pamphlet about it he will see that there is a lot in it that is political. It does make the Blue Book look rather curious. Still more, the party

pamphlet says that we hope that the result of the comprehensive schools will be that the private enterprise schools will cease to exist. I am not quoting quite fairly, but I am being hurried, and I think I am not being very unfair. Since we are none of us interested in this matter politically, I would ask hon. Members whether they are sure that the comprehensive school is desirable from the equalitarian point of view.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) will forgive me if I tell him—because it was I who taught him how to compose in the English language, so that when he makes mistakes I must take the blame—that the phrase
"parity of esteem" is unusually meaningless, even for statesmen. So far as what we are trying to get is there, is there not a risk that the comprehensive school may not get headmasters really as keen and excited about "modern" education as the headmasters of modern schools are? I may be mistaken in this, but I assure the Committee that I am not being hypocritical. One of my objections, though not the major objection, to the comprehensive schools is that I think they may definitely be against the interests of the modern schools, and against their hope to be classed in the public mind along with the grammar schools.
I had a third matter upon which I wished to be controversial and, indeed, I hoped even to be offensive, but I have forgotten that one. I think I have said as much as the right hon. Gentleman can be expected to digest and I will, therefore, bring my remarks to an end.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), has addressed the Committee in a very genial manner, and in quite a different fashion from the academic lectures which he usually delivers to this Assembly.
I join issue with the hon. Member on one of the remarks he has just made. I do not believe that it would be an attraction to entrants into the teaching profession if there were a few large plums. When a young man is considering whether he should enter the teaching profession he does not consider it from the point of view of the possibilty of becoming a headmaster of one of the larger schools, but from the point of view, first


of all, what he will get as his minimum salary when he starts teaching and, secondly, what he is likely to get as his maximum salary as a form master or a class teacher. The prospects of being a headmaster at a large school on a high salary are so remote for the average young man that they form no attraction to him at all in deciding whether he will or will not enter the teaching profession.
In the course of this debate there have been many references to the comprehensive school. Hon. Members opposite have spoken as if the comprehensive school were a deep laid plot by the Labour Party against society as it exists at present. As a matter of fact, I do not think that the idea of the comprehensive school originated with the Labour Party. It is true that the Labour Party has adopted as its official policy the idea of comprehensive schools, but it originated in the first place in the minds of a number of educationists in this country who were somewhat alarmed at what would be the social and educational trends of the present tripartite division of secondary education into grammar schools, technical schools and modern schools. There was the widespread feeling that this tripartite division of secondary education might lead to the stratafication of society, something on the lines mentioned by Aldous Huxley in his book "Brave New World."
Then there is the great difficulty of finding a foolproof method of selection of children at the age of 11 to go to one of these three types of secondary schools. The hon. Member for Carlton himself referred to the fear of examinations and the nervous tension which that fear may bring in early boyhood or youth. With this tripartite system in the modern grammar schools and technical schools, this examination fear is brought home to the child at a very early age indeed—as early as nine years of age. Some of the bad effects that have flowed from the over-examination of French youths during the past 40 or 50 years may also flow from the early fear of examinations which comes to our children when they know that their whole fate, so far as their future education and perhaps their future career is concerned, is to be decided by one examination at the age of between 10 and 11 years.
It is very difficult to find a system of selection at the age of 11 which is

absolutely foolproof. It is true that we have widened the method of selection and we no longer have merely an examination in English or arithmetic as we used to have. An intelligence test has been added. The opinion of the head teacher is taken into account. Those matters are weighed one with the other in making a final decision whether a child shall go to a grammar school or to a modern secondary school. But even with that we cannot be quite certain that we are going to make an absolutely correct selection at that early age. The selection causes a great deal of heartburning, jealousy and trouble between parents.
Moreover, when the selection has finally been made and some children have gone to a grammar school and others to a modern secondary school, it is fairly easy to transfer a child from a modern secondary school to a grammar school, but it is practically impossible to transfer a child from a grammar school to a modern secondary school if the child has shown that he is not fit to profit by the type of instruction given in the grammar school. It is practically impossible to transfer him to a modern secondary school because of the strong opposition which would ensue.
It is felt that the comprehensive school gets rid of all those educational difficulties. There will be no examination at the age of 10 or 11. All the children will go to the same comprehensive school and will be drafted into parallel classes according to their abilities and their records in the primary school from which they have come.

Mr. Pickthorn: Parallel?

Mr. Morley: Into parallel classes according to their age and abilities. It will be extremely easy to transfer a child from one stream to another stream. If a child shows that, having been placed in the grammar school stream, he has not sufficient ability or the right type of temperament to profit in the grammar school stream, it will be extremely easy to transfer him to another stream with another kind of instruction and syllabus. The difficulties we now have of transferring a child from a grammar school to a modern secondary school will not occur.
From the educational point of view the comprehensive school has very great advantages, and surely from the social point


of view it will be of great advantage to children during the impressionable ages of 11 to 17 or 18 to be together in one school —both the clever children and the children who are not so clever; all to be in one school, mixing with one another and learning to understand one another. It is as much from educational reasons as from social reasons that the Labour Party is now espousing the cause of the comprehensive school.
I did not rise to deal with that subject, however; I was provoked to make those observations by some of the statements which have been made by hon. Members opposite. It seems to me that the greatest problem we have to face in the development of education in this country during the next decade is that of securing a sufficient supply of teachers. We are not doing so badly as far as buildings are concerned. This year we shall be spending £50 million on buildings and next year, according to what the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier in the debate, we shall be spending something like £52 million on buildings.
If we take into consideration the many other uses to which building labour and building materials have to be put at present I think we shall see that we are getting our fair share of building labour and building materials in education and that a reasonable degree of progress—as much progress as can be expected—is being made in the building of new schools.
In any event, it is always possible to improvise some accommodation for pupils by using church halls and buildings of that kind, whereas, of course, it is not possible to improvise teachers. I think everybody will agree that it would be to the advantage of educational progress and of social solidarity in this country if people in all income groups sent their children of primary school age to our primary schools.
That, of course, is not the case today. There are even hon. Members on this side of the Committee who have children of primary school age, but who do not send them to our primary schools. They send them to boarding schools or to private schools. When asked the reason for that somewhat reprehensible and anti-Socialist conduct, they always reply that it is because the classes in the primary schools are far too large. They say, "I am send-

ing my child to a private school or a preparatory school, because there the classes are much smaller and he will get more individual attention."
That, of course, is perfectly true. In our schools today we have more than 35,000 classes of between 40 and 50 pupils each, and some 1,500 classes with over 50. It is quite clear that we cannot reduce the size of those classes unless we increase fairly considerably the supply of teachers. I freely admit that since 1945 the Ministry have done their best to increase the supply of teachers in the country. In fact, they have done more to increase the supply of teachers than any previous Ministry and we now have something like 40,000 more teachers in our schools than we had five years ago.
But although they have used every possible means to increase the supply, they are increasing the numbers only sufficently to meet the needs of the additional one million children we shall have in our schools in 1953, and they are not increasing the numbers sufficiently both to meet the needs of those additional children and also to reduce the size of the classes. It seems to me that the solution of this problem is to be found mainly in our grammar schools.
At present, we have a considerable shortage of women teachers. We have been told this evening that there are still 700 places for women in the two-year training colleges—places which have not yet been taken up for this year; but although there is at the moment not a very grave shortage of men teachers, I believe there is likely to be a shortage of men teachers in a few years' time. That will arise as the bulge due to the increased birth rate in 1945, 1946 and 1947 goes up through the schools. About 1960 that bulge will have reached the modern secondary school. It will have passed through the primary schools and have reached the secondary schools, and then there will be a need for a considerably greater supply of men teachers.
It seems to me, too, that not enough notice is taken of the effect of military training upon the future supply of men teachers. If a young man's birthday falls on the right day, he takes up his military training at the age of 18, does his two years' training, enters the training college at the age of 20 and is 22 before he leaves college and begins to


earn his living. If his birthday does not fall on the right day he may be 23 or 24 before he leaves the training college and starts teaching and earning a salary.
For two years that young man has been leading a man's life to a large extent and has been drawing at least some pay from the Army. Then he has to go to college and more or less to be dependent upon his parents for two years—dependent on them, at any rate, for clothes, for pocket money for fares and books. I think that will deter many young men in the future from entering the teaching profession.
Thus, it is not only that there is a shortage of women teachers but also that in a very few years' time, unless steps are taken to meet it, we may face a grave shortage of men teachers as well. As I said just now, it seems to me that the solution to this problem is to be found in our grammar schools. At present, nearly 80 per cent. of our grammar school boys and girls leave school before the ages of 17 or 18 and do not complete a full grammar school course.
In 1949, 85,000 boys and girls succeeded in passing the School Certificate, but in the same year only 32,000 of them took the Higher School Certificate. I think we could reasonably assume that of those 85,000 boys and girls who succeeded in passing the School Certificate, at least 50,000 of them would have been successful in passing the Higher School Certificate if they had remained at school for another two or three years.
It is from the sixth forms of our grammar schools that we draw not only our future teachers, but the future members of other professions—of the medical profession, of the dental profession, our future administrators, to a considerable extent our future technologists and scientists as well. We have, therefore, to consider what means we can adopt to encourage children to stay at the grammar schools to the age of 17 or the age of 18 and to encourage parents to urge their children to stay at the grammar schools up to those ages.
We want to get into the public mind the fact that the grammar school age is not from 11 to 16, but from 11 to 18. We cannot, of course, be surprised that a number of boys and girls leave the grammar schools today at the age of 16

when we consider that a boy or girl at that age can leave school, after obtaining School Certificate, or what will now be the General Certificate examination, and enter commerce or industry, earning anything from £4 to £6 a week. It is very tempting, both to the children and to the parents, when the children can leave school and earn wages of that magnitude, for them to go to do so.
The Parliamentary Secretary asked for suggestions as to how we could deal with this problem, and it does seem to me that we have got to treat these children in the same way we treat entrants into the university. We have got to give the boys and girls from 16 to 18 in our grammar schools maintenance allowances of sufficient value to encourage them to stay for the full grammar school course. I know, of course, that many local education authorities today have the power to grant such maintenance allowances, but I think they use that power generally rather sparingly and somewhat grudgingly.
The Ministry, a short time ago, sent a circular to the local education authorities asking them to consider this question of maintenance allowances for boys and girls from 16 to 18 in our grammar schools, but it appears that the Ministry and the local authorities are engaged in playing their old and favourite game of passing the buck from one to another, because the local authorities are complaining that when they attempt to do something in the way of increasing these maintenance allowances they are thwarted by the action of the Ministry. At all events, it does seem that this is about the only way in which we can hope to get in the future a sufficient number of entrants not only to the teaching profession but into the other major professions as well.
Now I should also like to touch very briefly upon a cognate subject, the question of the number of students at the universities. Last year we had 19,850 students at our universities. One must acknowledge that, thanks to the more generous treatment by the Treasury, and thanks to the interest that has been taken by the Ministry of Education, there has been since the war a very considerable increase in the number of undergraduates in the universities of England and Wales. In 1950 we had 19,850 students at our universities, of whom 1,000 were State scholars, 1,000 had university awards, 1,000 had F.E.T. grants, and 8,850 were


in receipt of scholarships from local authorities. The National Union of Students and the Workers' Educational Association and the National Union of Teachers have all sent me correspondence in which they doubt whether that number of 19,850 will be able to be maintained this year.
This year the pattern seems to be something like this. There will be only about 100 F.E.T. grants as compared with 1,000 F.E.T. grants last year. The number of State scholarships has been doubled from 1,000 to 2,000, and university awards are 1,100. Some pressure, I think, ought to be brought on the universities in respect of their university awards, because the Working Party on the future of university education advocated that the university awards should be increased to the number of 2,000, and they are still at the level of 1,100.
With 2,000 State scholarships and 1,100 university awards and 100 F.E.T. grants it seems that the local authorities' grants will have to be increased from 8,850 to 9,650, by another 800, if we are to keep the number of students at our universities at the figure of last year, which, everybody agrees, was the desirable figure of 19,850.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh), who opened the debate, referred to the pressure of finance upon the local authorities and the necessity, if possible, of finding some way of relieving that pressure. She will realise, and the Committee generally will realise, that the local authorities are now, in view of the increase in education rates, very reluctantly going to increase their expenditure on education, and it may be that the local authorities will not be willing this year to make the additional 800 awards that will be necessary to bring the total number of university students up to 19,850.
I am wondering whether my right hon. Friend could increase the State scholarships a little this year. I know that it is a very considerable achievement on his part to have got the increase from 1,000 to 2,000, and I expect that he had very considerable difficulty in doing even that, but I am wondering whether, in view of these figures, he will increase them a little more this year by, say, about another 800; or, if he cannot do that, if there is any possibility of his making some

additional finance available to the local authorities to encourage them to give more university scholarships to keep up the numbers at the universities.
Finally, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us what he proposes to do so far as the future of higher technological education is concerned. The Report of the Advisory Council on Education for Industry and Commerce was published, I think, at the very beginning of this year. Some of its recommendations have been welcomed. Everybody agrees that more finance, better staffing, better equipment should be provided for the technical colleges in this country so that they can do their job of providing much better technologists.
There was another recommendation of the Advisory Council, and that was that a faculty of technology should be set up with power to grant awards at varying levels. I have had a good deal of correspondence with teachers in technical institutes and I have seen a number of them personally, and I find that there are very varying opinions among the teachers in technical institutes themselves about the recommendation about the setting up of a Royal College of Technology. A few of them favour it, but the majority of them say that the students in technical colleges and institutions do not want awards; they do not want to be members or associates or even fellows of a Royal College of Technology.
What they want are degrees. They want to be bachelors of technology or masters of technology or doctors of technology. They are of the opinion that a body merely granting awards which have not the status of degrees, and will not be regarded by the general public as having the same prestige as degrees, or as proofs as good as degrees that there holders carry the same knowledge as holders of degrees—the mere granting of such awards—will not attract a sufficient number of students to take up the study of the various technologies. They are in favour of promoting some of the chief technical colleges into institutes of technology of university status with power to grant degrees in technology.
Everybody is agreed that we must improve technological training. Everybody agrees it is absolutely essential for the expansion of our industries and trade,


and the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side herself referred to it as being a very important matter. I should think that by this time my right hon. Friend has had consultations with the various interests involved, and I hope that, when he replies to the debate, he will be able to tell the Committee of the decision he has taken on this important matter.

7.20 p.m.

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) referred earlier in his remarks to the difficulty and importance of the sifting or assessment process at the age of 11. My only excuse for intervening in the ranks of the regulars and experts in these education debates is to speak very briefly on problems arising as a result of that sifting process.
I think hon. Members will agree that there is a great deal of anxiety in the minds of parents today, partly because they do not realise what the character of the sifting process is, partly because of their natural pride in the believed ability of their own progeny, but partly, I believe, because in certain areas the sifting process is not being sufficiently well done.
On the one hand, with the better kind of education authority the process has many stages: the report of the headmaster of the primary school; the examination paper, including some arithmetic and an essay—bearing in mind the verbal felicity which is necessary and important for grammar school education; there is the intelligence test; there is an interview by the headmaster of the grammar school; and in some cases, after that series of investigations at the age of 11, there is a term by term report from the headmaster of the primary school to secure any transfers whenever they seem to be appropriate.
On the other hand, in some areas there is a form of assessment in which the psychological test plays the predominant part. I want to make it perfectly plain that I am not one of those who criticise the modern methods of investigation. In the organisation with which I was associated until a couple of years ago every candidate for clerical employment was astonished by being confronted with the papers involved in an intelligence test.
There is an impression abroad—and it is not without some foundation—that in some areas too much emphasis is being

laid upon that mechanical assessment of intelligence which is the intelligence test. The intelligence test affords us some important information about the child. But it affords us precious little information about other important aspects of the child; precious little about its character and its staying power, precious little about other elements which are important in this decision.
I was surprised to find no mention of such subjects in this Report. A page was devoted to the no doubt magnificent piece of sculpture that was presented to the Victoria and Albert Museum, of
"Neptune and Glaucus." I wish there had been more about education, and more about some of these problems that are disturbing the minds of parents, even at the expense of some of the magnificent illustrations and the literary joys to which other hon. Members have referred.
As to the psychological tests—although I imagine they are almost covered by the Official Secrets Act, for obvious reasons—it is necessary to be perfectly clear about the limited information that can be got from asking children such questions as to
Underline the correct answer to each of the following questions: Clear is to muddy as light is to—milky, water, sunny, dark, day, lamp.
In each of the following questions all hut one of the things are alike in some way. Underline the different one: herring, cod, haddock, crab, sole, plaice; or hoot, sleep, squeak, hiss, shout, squeal; or sponge, soap, bathroom, towel, nail-brush.
That kind of test affords important information about one part of the child's brain. But I am pretty certain that they are wrong in those local education authority areas where predominant stress is laid upon the intelligence test. In one area, only those who can achieve the level of an intelligence quotient of 115 can ever hope to get into a grammar school, whereas in fact in the past a great deal of first-class grammar school material—if I may use the term, human material—had an intelligence quotient of between 100 and 115.
This decision now reached at the age of 11 and subsequently is of tremendous importance, and the parents of this country know it. In many areas it is a decision as to whether the child is to achieve a school certificate. In many areas the alternative is the old


senior school re-named "modern secondary." It is no more than that. We speak of "secondary modern education"; we hope that we shall reach a much higher level, but the fact of the situation today is that for many parents that decision is one between the possibility of entering a profession or a skilled occupation, and on the other hand attaining such an educational level as would make that impossible.
That being so, I do suggest it is important that the Ministry should continuously study this method of assessment; that the Minister—who, if I may say so, is a man more calculated than most to distrust the advice of experts in narrow fields—should interest himself particularly in the various methods that are being used, in order to ensure that a composite decision likely to reveal the child as a whole is the basis of every such assessment at the age of 11.
Of course, the answer often given is: the comprehensive school. I think it is a great pity that so much party politics has been injected into this conception. There are many of us who have tried to approach it with an open mind, but to find that it is being claimed that comprehensive schools will manufacture more and more little Socialists for the community—[HON. MEMBERS:
"No."] Well, earlier on those hon. Members who were here heard the quotation from the Labour Party Conference at Margate. A Mr. Woodall said:
I believe that in the comprehensive system of education lies the basis of educating the next generation to form a Socialist society.

Mr. Pannell: Surely the Conservative Party would not let it go out to the world that their pronouncements on party policy are made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). I do not suggest that the parallel is quite a fair one; I do not know who Mr. Woodall is; but my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon), who is Chairman of the Labour Party, or my right hon. Friend the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, are surely better exponents of what is our party policy than a maybe irresponsible, or earnest, delegate at a party conference.

Dr. Hill: I am glad to hear that disavowal; there is the fact that a political partly has thought it necessary to define

a party line upon an essentially educational topic. It is the official policy of the Labour Party. I believe that the attitude expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary was the right one, that we need to see some carefully controlled experiments in this field.
There is one consideration to which reference has not been made, and with that I shall conclude. As matters stand, what the Ministry are seeking to do in the tripartite system is to eliminate class or social differences. For heaven's sake, in our desire to avoid educational segregation on grounds of class, let us not forget the importance of educational segregation in the interests of education. It is clearly desirable that those who are admittedly of a higher standard of intellectual ability should receive different treatment by way of education. They should rub their minds on others equally good or better. It is also clearly desirable that those who do not fall into the grammar school class should not feel themselves to be always the "Number Two's" in the school. A kind of perpetual "second eleven" in many fields.
I would ask the Minister to allay a great deal of public apprehension about the sorting of children by what may seem to be the oddest collection of questions —they are not so odd as they look—and on what seems to be a mechanical basis that makes the profoundest difference to a child. Many a mother is in the position that when her child is rejected at 11 years of age she is not able to afford the independent school that might offer an alternative. I urge the Minister to seek to satisfy himself that in all areas this matter is being intelligently watched and with no unnecessary emphasis upon a mechanistic conception of these problems of human assessment.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Richards: I am sorry to find myself in complete disagreement with the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh), who opened the debate this afternoon. The progress of education in the last 50 years makes one of the most interesting stories that we have been allowed to discuss for quite a long time. It shows quite clearly that much of the progress which is made is dependent upon the co-ordination of three very important factors.
First of all, is the central Government, which we have here, I presume, represented on the Government Front Bench? Secondly, we have the local education authorities. One of the great progresses of these many years is the extent to which local education authorities have shouldered the very difficult task of carrying out the recommendations which they receive periodically, I presume, from the central Government.
Then there are the teachers, who have developed an entirely new attitude towards education. We have read of teachers who in the old days were engaged in pursuing a very limited conception of education, but the conception has been considerably widened, with the result that today we have a single system made up of the various elements, allowing for a considerable degree of freedom for local authorities and making for considerable variety in all parts of the country.
I was interested in the historical story of development from the period of the Board of Education to the establishment of the Ministry of Education, as we call it at the present time, and to find that the Board of Education in the old days used to select some of its members and its higher servants by a process which resulted in bringing to the Board some of the most eminent scholars that we have had during the last 50 years.
The names are in the Report and it is well that we should recognise the great service that has been rendered to education by men like Chambers, Selby-Bigge and others. It is very good for the Ministry of Education to have among its most distinguished servants people of really keen intellectual interests who have enriched the scholarship of our country, because it adds considerable lustre to the Ministry. That kind of thing could be continued. The names of those scholars who have served the Ministry so well will remain long in the history of our education and culture.
I was also interested to realise that the conception of a really national system of education is the creation of the last 50 years. I need hardly say that there was an educational system before that, but we had not conceived the idea of one comprehensive national system. It is interesting for those of us who remember something of the fights that took place to recall that the foundation was laid by

the Balfour Act of 1902, which was more violently contested than almost any Act that has passed through the House. We all remember the great attacks that used to be delivered on it by Mr. Lloyd George, and the calm replies to him by the late Lord Balfour. There were undoubtedly heroes in those days, which was a very exciting time, indeed.
That was the foundation of our educational development and it is true to say, after nearly 50 years, that the Balfour Act transformed education in this country. It is easy to understand the violent opposition that arose when the Act was introduced. By the Act of 1870, the school boards had been established in almost every parish in the land. Some of them, like the London School Board, were very powerful institutions. They were allowed to levy rates for primary or elementary education. Those schools that had the benefit of rates forged ahead, possibly to the disadvantage of the voluntary schools which had no such source of revenue available for them.
In 1902 when Mr. Balfour introduced his Bill one thing he did was to abolish the old board school system and to place all the schools, both the board school type and the voluntary schools, in the custody of the county council. Here came in the rub which aroused a tremendous amount of passion at the time. The voluntary schools for the first time became available for the rates, and hon. Members will remember the great outcry about denominational teaching being put upon the rates.
The fight was carried on for quite a number of years, and the result was an entirely new conception of the administration of education. The county councils were now empowered to take charge of the schools and they were further empowered, if they cared to do so, to go in for secondary education. If I may say so humbly to your presence, Mr. Lang, here is one of the points in which Wales was well ahead of England. Because Welsh Members in this House, as far back as 1889, had managed to pass an Intermediate Education Act which applied to Wales and Monmouth. The result was that secondary schools sprang up everywhere throughout the Principality, and by 1902 every county in Wales was well covered by secondary county schools.
It was some time before the English counties took advantage of the provision


in the 1902 Act though, once they started building schools, England became as well covered with county secondary schools as Wales before 1902. The Intermediate Education Act of 1889 laid the foundation of modern Welsh culture. It had a tremendous influence and resulted eventually in the establishment of a university in Wales.
Welsh education can be said to have changed the character of the country almost entirely. Here was a Welsh peasantry denied in many cases the benefits of the grammar schools so popular in England. With the coming of the Act, however, with secondary education, with the establishment of the University, it is no exaggeration to say that Wales has led in secondary and higher education.
The Report stresses the fact that education is a widening conception. Formerly, the State was only concerned with the establishment and the encouragement of primary education. Gradually, that extended to the provision of secondary education. Despite what has been said by an hon. Member opposite, I am glad to find that the Report recognises the great service rendered to this country by adult education. We ought not to expect that the adult education movement will provide graduates for the various universities. That is exactly what it does not. It takes the form of something like a modern renaissance of education.
Anyone who has been associated with this movement at close quarters must be tremendously impressed by the fact that, for the first time, the ordinary men and women during their short leisure hours have had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with education in the real sense of the term. Some of the most distinguished scholars in this country have been associated with this work. I know from my own experience what an amount of joy and comfort it has brought to a hard-working man to find that the pleasures of education are not confined to one class. It is one of the most powerful movements of our time. The right hon. Lady said that Ruskin College was founded in 1903 and she seemed to imply that this was the beginning of the movement.

Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I said that the chapter on

adult education began with Ruskin College and that looking at the book casually one might think there was nothing before. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there was.

Mr. Richards: I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Lady, but she seemed to imply that Ruskin College was the beginning of it, which is not true. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Neither is it set forth in that way in the Report. I am glad that the Report has remembered the pioneers of this wonderful educational movement and has preserved the names of people like Mansbridge and Temple.
I want to refer to one who is a Member of this House, the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood). He was for many years a Vice-President of the Workers' Educational Association, and he and Temple, working together, did much to expound the principles of the movement and to expand it in various parts of the country. The Report is a clear index of the development that has taken place in education from the primary school right up to the university, and I congratulate the Minister heartily on its production.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) has gone through a great deal of the history of education as set out in the Jubilee Report and I think he now agrees with us that adult education did not start with Ruskin College. I imagine it may have started when Eve first went into the Garden of Eden.
I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about the Balfour Act and in his many other references to advances in education which were put on the Statute Book by the Conservative Party. One point which I thought was interesting was his reference to the fact that the voluntary schools then in 1902 came on to the rates. That is true as regards their revenue costs, but of course, in respect of their capital costs, loan charges which, as the Minister knows, form a very great part of our costs today were not included. All these voluntary schools—I believe that there are still some 11,000—are only costing revenue charges, and in respect of loan charges they are a free gift to the country.
To return for a moment to the Report, I feel that the Minister rather fell between two stools: that, statutorily, he must sit on one of them—that is, his Annual Report. In regard to the other—the Jubilee Report—I should have thought it might have been better to have it separately. There are, of course, an immense number of statistical tables—no fewer than 100, which is 11 more than last year; and I suppose I should congratulate the Minister on his century. But for the sake of getting the picture clearly in the minds of the Committee, I should like just to refer to some of the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary concerning the building programme.
I refer to Table 67 on page 218: "Approval of Building Work." For 1949 the total amount approved for primary and secondary schools was £54,981,000. For 1950, the comparable figure is £35,051,000. I gather that what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary was that that did not result in any drop in the number of places to be provided in primary and secondary schools, and that, further, there was no drop in the standards of those places.

Mr. Tomlinson: Mr. Tomlinson indicated assent.

Mr. Ashton: The Minister nods. If what I have said is the case, I think that two steps have come about. First, the cost of a place in the primary schools, irrespective of land and playing fields, went down from £195 to £170, and now, in this year only, to £140—that was not in 1950, but in 1951. Furthermore, in secondary schools the cost, which was originally £325, similarly went down, to £290, and now, in 1951, it has gone down to £240. In addition, the overall picture of the same Table shows that in 1949 the total figure for building, for all forms of educational activities, was £70,501,000, and in 1950 was £44,164,000. It would seem on those figures, which, I think, I have quoted rightly, that there would be some difficulty if there is really no drop either in educational buildings or in the standards. I am not drawing any conclusions, but am merely asking for information.
I should like to refer next to paragraph 47 on page 46, in Chapter IV on Schools, where reference is made to "Manual of Guidance for Schools, No. 1," dated 23rd

August, 1950. This has reference to Sections 76 and 81 of the Education Act, to which reference has already been made by various hon. Members, who, clearly, have had similar troubles to mine in my own county in that the interpretation of those two sections is done differently in the different L.E.A.'s, of which the Minister once complained that there were 146 and that he could not carry all their activities and the figures concerning them in his head.
I should like to come back to the paragraph which deals with the independent and private public schools, a subject which has been touched upon this afternoon. I was at a dinner last Friday to celebrate the 400th anniversary of King Edward VI Grammar School in Chelmsford. The headmaster, in the course of what I thought was a very wise speech, said that he hoped that education would not be the plaything of party politicians.
Our debates here on education are as a rule objective, but we have today had references to the statement of policy for secondary education, and earlier in the day the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), made a contribution to the debate. I remember that in a debate on education, which I had the privilege of opening, on 17th April this year, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, said that:
Education is a political issue in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 1708.]
Furthermore, on 4th May, 1950, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said:
…we shall have to tackle the public school system one day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1950; Vol. 474. c. 2010.]
by the word "tackle," it seemed to me that he was meaning the kind of tackle which is made in Wales—they bring them down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear hon. Members opposite saying "Hear, hear."
I come now to the pamphlet "A policy for secondary education," on page 13 of which is written:
The desired end of a comprehensive school is that all children from an area, irrespective of class or wealth, should attend the same school. Clearly it is not possible to achieve this by the statutory abolition of fee-paying schools. These schools will probably vanish by a gradual process of attrition as parents increasingly send their children to the comprehensive schools.


I want to say, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that if we are to judge things by educational results, if we are to judge by the attitude, when it comes to their own children, of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, who realise in all seriousness that these schools provide opportunities for excellent education—it may be that they are not always taken advantage of but, as has been implied in the debate, they provide a magnificent background for character—then I should have thought that we do not want to have these schools destroyed, but that the parents who often endure great self-sacrifice to keep their children there should be encouraged so to do. It is perfectly true that Members on both sides send their children to these schools to try to get what they think are the best facilities, and that they take every opportunity, and rightly so, of getting whatever financial assistance there is from whatever source may be available.
The objections to these schools have been spoken of today, and they are touched upon in the pamphlet to which I have referred: the questions of privilege and of class distinction. During the debate we have heard constantly about the equality of opportunity. I was interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that he was not in favour of uniformity in schools. I should have thought that equality of opportunity, a subject to which my hon. Friend the Member of Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) referred, is not always easy of achievement, and that perhaps the best circumstances in which these conditions might exist would be in time of war.
After all, at such a time it is possible for anyone in the final issue to volunteer and to lose his life. I am well aware that many people who may have been anxious to act in this way were prevented from doing so, but by and large, against whatever background one likes to select I should have thought that the products of these independent schools have nobly justified themselves.
Having, I hope, convinced the Committee on both sides that, educationally, we want these schools to continue, I should like to refer again to my quotation from Chapter IV of the Report. I am sure the Minister will agree that there are a number of anomalies in the interpretation of

these Sections. If I may read from the Act, the criterion in Section 76 is that the
authorities shall have regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.
As I understand it, read in conjunction with the paragraph, that is, however, subject to there not being sufficient places available in the maintained schools. Let us assume it, I do not know whether it is right or wrong, as I find it a little difficult to follow the interpretation, but on those premises it is clear that there will not be for many years sufficient public places available for all the pupils at these independent preparatory or public schools.
If they are to be provided even on the reduced basis of cost of which we have heard this afternoon the actual cost to the public purse will be very considerable. I believe there is a Committee which has just reported called the Pearson Committee which, for the purpose of arrangements between the local authorities—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton referred—proposes that the actual cost of primary places shall be £26. I think the Minister said in reply to a Question last week that the cost was £27. In the secondary school, up to the age of 15, it would be £41 per annum and above 15 in the grammar schools it would be £66 per annum.
I would seriously suggest that the question of this assistance, which the authorities interpret up to as much as £75 per annum—but again very differently throughout the 146 authorities—should be gone into. A good approach would be to say that we want to encourage these schools and encourage these parents, who, on top of paying the additional costs involved, are also paying full rates and taxes to provide public places for other people's children. Until such time as there are not public places available for them, they should be given assistance. Personally, I hope these always will be independent schools.
I wish to say a word on boarding fees. Here, I think, the system in my county of Essex, to which reference has been made, is a good one. It is very difficult to arrive at what the income of parents should be for this purpose. Take, for


example, parents who say they will invest some money or take out an educational policy for their children. Another parent prefers to buy a motor car. I am not apportioning blame, but one might think that, educationally the former parent who has invested money and forgone things for an educational policy, is the more proper person to whom help should be given.
I know that the one who has taken out an educational policy gets special help from the Treasury, up to about 3s. 6d. in the £, but this counts against the man who has been thrifty, while the man who has nothing, possibly because it is his own fault, gets all the assistance from the local authority. I think this one more instance of how, today, thrift is penalised and those with an easy way of life are able to sponge on the State.
I have put forward these views in all seriousness. I realise that perhaps in regard to this matter I have been fortunate. I was a great deal more fortunate than my father, who was taken from school at 14 to go to work in a Lancashire mill. I realise that in these matters, as in many others, there may be a certain amount of bitterness, but I should hate to feel that our approach to this problem, or indeed, to any other, was "If everyone cannot have it, no one shall."
Recently I was reading a book, which was widely reviewed, by Douglas Hyde, called "I Believe," in which there was a passage which struck me very much. It described how he changed from Communism to become a Roman Catholic and he said that Stalin, whom he thought an idealist, had from his own mouth more or less said, "I know I cannot raise the standard of living of my own people to that of Western Europe, but what I can do is to reduce that standard to that of our own country."
I hope the Minister, having regard to the fact that these schools are desirable, will agree that the parents, who, often at great self-sacrifice, send their children there and have to pay the same rates and taxes as others, will give careful consideration to my suggestions. My proposals are simple and straightforward and. I hope will help to iron out a number of anomalies which exist and to which reference has been made on both sides of the Committee. I hope that we shall not, through party political prejudice in

matters of education, cut off our noses to spite our faces.

8.7 p.m.

Miss Burton: I should like to echo the last statement made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) that party political prejudice should not enter education.
I am particularly pleased that the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh), who opened the debate, is still present. I heard her speech and listened with great attention, and I felt she was endeavouring to be completely fair. Because of that, I could not understand why she seemed to be so partisan about the use of the phrase "the common man." I can only assume that the right hon. Lady, and I think some hon. Members opposite, see a different meaning in that phrase from many hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
I was under the impression that the words, "The century of the common man" were first used by President Roosevelt, and have always taken it to mean that the ordinary person was at last to have a chance. That is how I have always read "the common man" and
"the common child."

Miss Horsbrugh: Miss Horsbrugh indicated assent.

Miss Burton: I could not see how the right hon. Lady, who nods her head in agreement, could object to us on this side of the Committee talking of the present age as that of the common man or of the common child.
I speak from experience. I taught for 11 years in what we used to call the elementary school where I came into contact with the less fortunate, financially, of the people of this country. What I say tonight must obviously be coloured by that experience. I hope I shall be fair, but my viewpoint and judgment are whether or not the children of this country, taken all round, are now getting a better opportunity in education than they had in the past.
Before going on to give what I think is very justifiable credit to this Government for what they have done, I wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) for what he did and to say that his speeches in this House tended to be solely for the benefit of the child. I believe the right aim and object of education is to build a


single, but not a uniform, system of education. In other words, I do wish to see the same educational opportunities available to all children, irrespective of the finances of their parents, as was not the case in the past. We accept completely, I hope, that children are not the same, any more than grown-ups are the same, but I believe they should have that opportunity.
We have heard a good deal about this Report—which I have read—and we all know that in 1900 the leaving age was 12, while today it is the end of the term after the 15th birthday, with 16 years of age as the goal. I think that credit should be given to the Government for that, although I know it was mooted before they came into power. It was this Government that carried the reform through in the face of opposition in the country and from some hon. Members in this House.
That is the first point that I would make. The credit which I should like to give to this Government, and which makes me very proud, is that the greatest advance in the provision of new primary and secondary schools has been under this Government, from 1945 to 1950. In that period we had twice as many built as in any other similar time. I think that today both sides of the Committee can take great pride in the fact that Britain's new schools are among the finest in the world.
I say that with great feeling because on 10th January this year the Minister of Education came to Coventry and opened there the largest prefabricated aluminium school in Britain. Three sides of that school are built almost completely of glass, and it holds 840 children. I do not know what would have been the reactions of hon. Members who have not been teachers. The reaction of one who was a teacher, not in the dim and distant past but from 1924 to 1935, on going into that school was, "My goodness. I wish I could have had the pleasure of teaching in a school like that or that the children I taught could have had the pleasure of attending such a school." The colouring of our old schools leaves much to be desired. One remembers the dark brown and green walls. How drab they were. I think that great credit should be paid to the Ministry for the schools which are being opened today.
I wish to turn briefly to the matter of comprehensive schools. There are divided opinions on this matter, and I think they are divided irrespective of party. On both sides of the Committee there are misgivings about it. I have today's copy of "The Times," which feels that a limited experiment would be justified, and today's copy of the "Daily Herald," which contains three letters against it and none in favour of it.
Having given those examples, I would say that I believe that we should make an experiment in this type of school. I quite agree with the critics who say that equality in education ought not to mean the limiting of opportunity for those children who are more able than the others, but I have taught in schools in the past where there was a decided limiting of opportunity for such children either because of the largeness of the classes or inadequate accommodation.
I do not accept it as a fact that comprehensive schools must necessarily provide this limitation. I expect other Members of the Committee have probably had comments made to them similar to those which various head teachers of modern schools have made to me during the past few months, to the effect that there is a feeling among parents of the children attending their schools and among the children themselves that those who go to a grammar or technical school are a little brighter or more intelligent or that the school is better. Those head teachers have been very concerned to break down that feeling. I hope that the comprehensive school may help to do so.
In Coventry last week the Education Committee approved preliminary plans for our first comprehensive school. The proposals were put up jointly by an architect from the Ministry of Education and the Coventry city architect. It is one of the few occasions on which such co-operation has been possible. I should like—and I think the Minister would agree—to pay tribute to the good sense of the Coventry local authority in accepting the co-operation of my right hon. Friend's architect.
This new school is to be in our Tile Hill Neighbourhood Unit. It will accommodate 1·700 children and it is to be made of aluminium. If Members are interested they may like to know that it, is the Bristol Aeroplane Company which


will provide the aluminium. This is a form of construction that has still not been finally explored in this country and the co-operation with the Ministry is to continue. This school marks a new venture in aluminium construction in that it is to consist in part of three storeys. The aluminium school which we have in Coventry at present consist only of one.
The first instalment of this scheme is to provide for 900 pupils. People who are expert in teaching will be interested to know that the accommodation is to be about 70 square feet per pupil in comparison with the normal 80 square feet, and the cost per pupil is to be £240. I would here say that I think that in Coventry they have been very sensible in deciding that this comprehensive school shall be divided into three houses. It was felt that it was quite impossible for the headmaster or the headmistress of a school of 1,700 to maintain the contact built up by the head of a smaller school, but that the heads of three separate houses might establish the contact which was lacking previously. It was thought that that would divide the school into manageable units each forming a cross-section of the school.
I turn to the question of the recreation of young people. The 1944 Act, and page 60 of the Report, recognise the partnership between the Ministry and the local education authority for the Youth Service. We know that the Minister and the local authority together can provide facilities for sport and recreation. In the House, on 15th December, we had a debate about the provision of playing fields. Mention was made in that debate of the question of floodlighting playing fields and playgrounds for use at night.
I feel—perhaps I am wrong—that the Minister had to be convinced of the advantages of that. He felt that the attraction might be the floodlighting and not the playing of games in it. I was supported by the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus), who said that he had done training on a ground at night when he was a young man and had trained by himself, but that when the ground was floodlit every member of his club came along and made use of it. I should like to ask the Minister whether, in view of the shortage of accommodation—both playing fields and playgrounds—he will press the local authorities to examine the

possibility of floodlighting for use at night, and that he himself will examine it.
In that debate, the Minister said, in c. 1522 of HANSARD of 15th December, that it was essential that in the provision of playing fields women and girls should get a fair share of the facilities provided. It had not occurred to me that they did not, but I regret to say that the Minister was quite correct because from the Report of the National Playing Fields Association of May this year I note that they have provided to date 1,240 football pitches, 660 cricket pitches, 145 hockey pitches and 226 netball pitches. I should like to ask the Minister if he would note that 1,240 football pitches compared with 145 hockey pitches is not an adequate comparison. As he is obviously aware of that dangerous trend, I hope that he will impress on local authorities the necessity for seeing that the girls are as well provided for as the boys.
I wish to ask the Minister whether he feels that the Ministry, the local authorities, and it may be voluntary organisations, can do anything about the specialised training of our young boys and girls who have considerable prowess in the field of athletics. Last week we had the national schools athletic championships, sponsored, I think, by the "News Chronicle." I believe the "News Chronicle" have also had films made of various well-known athletes demonstrating their particular sports for showing to children. The Central Council for Physical Recreation have also done their share. These youngsters are good. Some records were broken on Saturday. But in this country it is quite impossible under the present system for our young people to have a chance of training to championship standard as is done in other countries.
I hope that the Minister will consider that matter. I am referring particularly to athletics, swimming and tennis. I think that cricket and football are catered for because the clubs look out for the young people of ability in those games. I feel that in this other matter something requires to be done. If one has not a great deal of money it is practically impossible to attain first-class standard in athletics, tennis or swimming one needs to train. That is done in America and, I think, in the Scandinavian countries. I hope that something will be done about that.
In conclusion, referring back to the question of playing fields, the Central Office of Information, on 12th July last, published a book called, "Children out of School." In that book it was stated that nearly half the school children between the ages of five and 15 had no park to play in and more than half had not got a playground.
Our new schools are among the finest in the world. I suggest that our record for playing fields is not only not among the finest, but is disgraceful. In this Festival year, might it not be possible that some of the fetes or carnivals which are organised could provide money to supply playing fields for the children? I should like to pay tribute to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the work they are doing, and to recognise the great respect in which they are held throughout the country.

8.21 p.m.

Commander Maitland: The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), spoke in the earlier part of her speech about comprehensive schools. I was much interested in what she said because she took a different line from that taken by the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) who spoke earlier in the afternoon. He said without any doubt and in a straightforward manner—and as far as I know, he was not interrupted by any hon. Member opposite—that the comprehensive school was the official policy of the Labour Party. We should like to know about that. It is a matter of considerable importance. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Minister of Education, can answer the question. Perhaps some other hon. Member will reply to that rather ticklish point.
The other part of the hon. Lady's speech in which I was interested was that when she spoke about the provision of playing fields. I cannot think of any nicer way of spending money than to spend it in the provision of playing fields. But the trouble is that we have not very much money to spend. It is to that point, because it is fundamental, that I want to devote some of my remarks. There is no doubt that recently the ratepayers have been extremely worried about the very heavy costs of education.
This has been said before several times during this debate. I make no excuse for repeating it. Although the weight of the rate was heavier during the year under discussion, and there was a greater increase than ever before in a single year, I think it probable that the rate will make an even greater stride in the year ahead. It is only natural in these circumstances that the ratepayers should be worried and anxious about what they are getting for their money. I was chided when I made this point in a recent debate and talked about getting something for one's money. That is a very human and proper thing to want to do.
The Report on Education in 1949, and the recent Report on Reading Ability published by the Ministry, do not satisfy the ordinary ratepayer that he is getting what he ought to get for his money. It is no good calling us Jeremiahs because we refer to anxiety about reading ability. It is stated in these two Reports that we have not advanced. That, surely, is very bad.
The pressure of the rates varies to a large extent between different local authorities. There is a tendency to create discrepancies between local authorities in the way in which they are able to perform their duties. One of these points has already been mentioned in connection with those local authorities who feel that they can provide places in fee-paying schools for children in their locality when it is necessary that that should be done. Treatment in that respect varies enormously between different local authorities.
We have all seen the recent up-to-date summary of the various ways in which local authorities have dealt with the Burnham Committee's award. Most authorities have handled it differently. The result is that we have a situation in which some authorities hold out greater opportunities to teachers than other authorities can offer. I think that we are gradually, by no deliberate step, creating a set of circumstances in which children fortunate enough to be born in some places will have better opportunities for education than children born in other places. I ask the Minister to consider that matter carefully. This difference in educational opportunity seems to be growing in our educational system, and it


really is not tolerable that such a state of affairs should exist.
I feel most anxious about the fact that in the Report under discussion there is no real answer to this great problem of financial stringency which is endangering the development of education today. I agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh) when she complained that all that there was in the Report was the comment at the very end that "the solution of this problem could not be dealt with in this Report." I would press on the Minister the point that this question must be dealt with, even though it is difficult.
We on this side of the House—not only us but the National Union of Teachers and others—have drawn attention to this problem. It is bound up with the whole question of the finances of local Government as they are fitted into the general scheme of our national finances. We believe that steps should be taken now to consider this matter. We have suggested that a Royal Commission should be set up as one method of examining the whole question. It cannot be said that the whole expenditure of local government is something which we can properly discuss today; but the Minister of Education is the biggest spender today in local government, and I think that he will become a bigger spender still.
Therefore, it is right and natural that he should take the lead in initiating some inquiry into ways and means of bringing this difficult position to an end. In this stringent position, it is obvious that we should pay the closest attention to priorities. That is why I was very surprised when, in answer to a Question by me asking for an explanation of the statement by the Chancellor on coming economies, we were told that there would be reductions in future in national expenditure on technical and technological education.
To some extent, the Parliamentary Secretary has tried to explain the situation, and he has said that, in any case, we are going to spend the same amount next year. I cannot regard that as being an answer, because almost in the same breath he said that the demands for technicians who had been properly trained and those who had been technologically trained were absolutely unlimited in

industry. Surely in these circumstances, and in our great economic difficulties, it is astonishingly stupid for the Chancellor and the Minister to hold back on something which we have all at some time asked to be further developed.

Mr. Hardman: The fact is that there is no cut in expenditure on technical education, but there is delay in reaching the maximum.

Commander Maitland: The hon. Gentleman says there is delay in reaching the maximum, but that, in effect, means a cut. The provision of technical and technological education in this country is not a problem which is solved by delay. Things get worse as time goes on, and the longer the Minister and the Government take to get on with developing technological education the worse it will be for industry. It is not a problem which can solve itself simply by waiting. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is waiting for another Government, which I admit would be a very good answer.
I will now try to make some suggestions in regard to this question. I hope that tonight the Minister will let us into the secret of what is holding up a statement in regard to technological education and taking action on the recent Report. Now for the suggestion. I have not seen any great drive by the Government to get the maximum amount of assistance from industry in the provision of technical and technological education. I know that there are many industries which help a great deal, but I also know there are many which do not.
I hear hon. Members opposite say that industries are making too much profit. If that is so, surely there is a most excellent way of milking off some of that profit. Why not give an inducement to manufacturing firms and industries, in their own interests, to invest some of their money in technical and technological institutions in the way that many already do? The possibility of a remission of taxation might also be offered, and I wonder whether something like this could not be devised so that we could really get on with this very difficult but necessary part of our educational life.
In my opinion, however, the question of money is the lesser of the two great menaces which education is facing today. The other is the question of manpower,


which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Itchen and by other hon. Members. In this country today, with all the various demands on available trained manpower, there are simply not enough people to provide the quality and class of teachers that we require in education without taking people from other vital services.
When we take an excellent girl and make her into a teacher, we may find that we are depriving the nursing service. When we take a school dentist, we take him away from the main dental service of the country, and the same thing is true of other professional services. Teachers are often born, sometimes other types of people can never be teachers but the fact remains that a really intelligent teacher can do other things besides teaching, and could even become a Member of the House of Commons, although when he got here he might find it very difficult to make a speech. This particular problem is even more difficult to solve than the problem of not having enough money. Money will not solve this problem. It is something which has to be solved inside the country, and it is going to be extremely difficult to do it.
I wish to make to the Minister one very simple suggestion which I believe may help. I remember that I once before referred to it in a speech in the House. It is the further development of technical and visual aids in education. Everybody must realise that the best way of educating a child is by the personal touch—I do not mean that in two senses—by having a personal interest in the child. That is what we want, but we may not be able to have it.
Technical and visual aids at their best are probably only a second best, but we may have to go for them. That may be the only way in which we can relieve ourselves of this pressure, because nothing would be worse than to man up the whole of the education services and not to have the quality we need. I suggest to the Minister that it would be well worth while his asking his main Advisory Committee —I know he has a special committee which deals with technical aids—to consider the matter in relation to the whole problem of man and woman power available to the teaching profession in this country.
In conclusion, I want to refer to another matter. The Minister said that a visitor to this country would not find many of the things he expected to find; he would not find anything very much about curricula and the actual laying down of what was to be taught. I agree; that is our British system of education. But there is one thing he would not find and one thing which I believe he would expect to find, and that is any reference at all to our great independent school system in this country.
The independent schools have been taken into the orbit of the Minister of Education under the 1944 Act. They have their own problems—and very difficult ones they are. It seems astonishing to me that they should be left right out of this document and relegated to party pamphleteers who say that they are gradually going to be destroyed by inanition. That was in the pamphlet to which the hon. Member for Itchen referred when he talked about comprehensive schools being Labour Party policy.
Therefore, I think that in the interest of the public schools—and we on this side admire them and believe that they still provide the finest education in the world—the Minister of Education should say what his feelings are towards them. Are they to die of inanition, or is he going to help them? I hope that when we on this side of the Committee get into power—as we soon shall; possibly before the year is out—we shall by one means or another see that people still have the opportunity to educate their children at public or independent schools.
It is quite true that we have created in this country a most anomalous state of affairs in regard to the independent schools. We have, as it were, provided a queen's cell for education and, in the equalitarian face of it that seems absolutely wrong. But it produces the finest results in the world and when we try to level down and do away with quality and worship equality, it will be the worse for education in this country and for the country itself.

8.40 p.m.

Dr. King: Briefly I want to say one or two things about the problem revealed by the Minister's answer to recent Questions to the effect that 20 per cent. of grammar school boys and 25 per cent. of grammar school girls


left the grammar schools last year in their 15th year. Education to 16 years is the meagre minimum for grammar schools and we hope that grammar school education will, in time, continue for most children up to the age of 18 years.
One of the main causes of early school-leaving is economic. The high cost of living, the high wages paid to children between 15 and 16 years by a labour market clamouring for bright juvenile labour, and the joy of being no longer a financial burden, to one's parents and, most of all, the sad effect of bereavement taking the bread-winner from the home—all these are tempting young children away from grammar school tragically too soon.
Employers like to have their young employees as soon as possible to train them in the way of the firm, but I believe employers can help themselves as well as the children if they will realise that they are better off even from a business point of view if they let the children remain at the grammar schools to obtain a good general education before going on to special training. The better the foundations the more successfully can special skills be built upon them.
The most exciting part of education, the really critical and vital part, begins with adolescence. That is why the giving of secondary education to all children up to the age of 15 has been one of the greatest things this country has done since the war. That is why the grammar schools do not want to lose the potential leaders of the next generation when grammar school education is reaching its most vital stage in the adolescent years. Children give to a school as well as take away from it, and I think they give most and in doing so receive most in their later rather than their earlier years.
I therefore plead with all the earnestness I possess with parents whose children are in grammar schools and who find the financial burden a heavy one, to make all the financial sacrifices involved and to resist the attraction of an extra wage coming into the house, for the sake of the child's long-term interests. I urge education authorities to increase their maintenance and clothing grants to help poor parents to keep their children in grammar schools, and particularly to help the widow's children.
The second great cause of early school-leaving from the grammar schools lies in the fact that we have not yet found the best way of choosing children who are to go there. We decide a child's future educational career at the age of 11 plus. It may be true that the nation's 5 per cent. most able children reveal their ability at that age, although I doubt it. Julius Caesar certainly did not. It was not until he was 40 that he got out of the "backward class" into the "A stream."
Some children develop late and go a long way further, even though they mature after the date prescribed by local educational authorities. Many of the children who leave grammar school early are children who have developed rather precociously and then find the going too heavy. One of our problems, and a very mighty one, is to see that the "late developer" on the one hand gets the kind of education for which he or she is fitted and that the precocious child, on the hand, is not left stranded in an atmosphere which is too exacting for it. The heavy demands of grammar school syllabuses call for tremendous moral qualities—qualities of character as well as intelligence. No selection tests can measure these moral qualities which are so vitally important and have a bearing upon what a child will do at the grammar school.
Intelligence tests have recently come under fire. I would agree that such tests are not infallible. I believe that the real enemy of the intelligence test is the man who, having established an I.Q., believes it has got an absolute value. The intelligence test is a useful instrument. It tries to measure what the child is capable of doing rather than what he really knows, because what he knows depends upon the accident of his home surroundings and so many other things. But neither intelligence tests nor the old tests in English and arithmetic can measure the moral qualities.
Moreover, the nervous reaction of a child to examinations, particularly in these days when parents inflict their anxiety on their children, makes it important that the various tests to which a child is submitted should be taken as casually as possible. They should be in the child's own classroom, with his own teacher, without the terrifying apparatus


which accompanied the old scholarship examinations. They should be spaced over a long period. It is extremely wrong to decide a child's fate by his behaviour on a single day which might easily be one of his off days.
Above all, it is important that examinations, no matter how scientifically administered, no matter how skilfully concealed, should be supplemented by some other method of selection. Weight should be given to the reports and the knowledge possessed by the teachers of the child in the junior school, and the final lists of children who go to the grammar school should be vetted by committees of head teachers who should discuss all the borderline cases very carefully indeed.
I have spoken very briefly on what I think is a very important subject. I think we ought to give teachers in our junior schools a much greater part in the grave task of selecting which children are to go to the grammar schools. I would urge the Minister to investigate the wastage which is taking place from grammar schools, to see that bereavement or financial hardship does not take the good child away from the grammar school, and, above all, to investigate the methods by which various authorities are selecting children for grammar school places.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: I should like to start by apologising to the Committee, and especially to the Parliamentary Secretary, for the fact that I was prevented from attending the first part of this debate through attendance on a Select Committee of this House which sat for a prodigious length of time.
Though I shall promise to be extremely brief, I could not find it in my conscience to allow one of these rare education debates to pass without saying a little more on the question of finance, which has been touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh). I hope that hon. Members who have heard me speak on the subject of education before will do me the favour of believing that my concern in this matter is not primarily one of the pocket of the taxpayer or the ratepayer, but is primarily that of the future of education.
So far as I can see, looking at the figures of the present and imminent cost of education in this country, and removing from

the Estimates the cost of universities, museums and other such matters, the cost borne by the rates in this country has risen since 1945–46 from approximately £61 million to about £114 million, which is very nearly double. The cost to the Exchequer in the same period has risen from over £82 million to nearly £205 million, which is very much more than double.
The increase during last year in rate-borne expenditure was larger than it has ever been. As I have said, I am not here concerned to make an appeal in defence of the ratepayer's pocket. The ratepayer elects representatives who are charged with doing that duty for him. I believe that in the last resort the ratepayer will defend himself, if pressed far enough. All I am concerned with is to try to implore the Committee not to make what I regard as the very great mistake of trying to push this disagreeable subject out of their sight into the future, not to bury their heads in the sand and think that the problem will solve itself, because I believe, very forcibly, that here we have the main problem of education at the moment.
However much we may be concerned with the desirability of improving the standard of education, of dealing better with more children, of providing amenities, of providing better salaries and better teachers, fundamentally the limiting factor is finance, and I cannot see how anybody looking at the financial figures, looking at the number of children for whom places have to be found in our schools over the next two or three years, can fail to see the approach of what looks like an immense and serious crisis in educational finance—and that means in everything to do with education.
It is only too easy to say that we have enough problems this year, so let us leave the problems of next year to look after themselves and let us not be so pessimistic about them. I do not think anybody who deals with finance in this country can afford for a moment to allow the problems of two years ahead to look after themselves.
What does this boil down to? It means that if we are to leave present policies precisely unchanged, if we are to try to provide the statutory services for the extra number of children who are bound to pass through the schools,


then the cost of education inevitably will rise considerably, and primarily the cost will fall upon the rates. Unless the national income increases by an amount considerably larger than at present seems possible over the next few years—which would mean that the buoyancy of the revenue would be larger than seems probable—the probable extra cost of education will not be met by increased revenue—that is to say, as I see it, the Minister will be forced to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and try to extract from him a larger proportion of the revenue which the Chancellor collects.
In the Chancellor's Budget speech this year, there were fairly strong indications that that sort of approach would not be received with open arms at the Treasury. As I see it, we have only two possibilities; either we have to see that certain things are cut or we have to acknowledge the necessity of doing everything which we are doing a little less well than we are doing it at present. I have very little doubt which is the right angle from which to approach the problem. It seems to me inescapable that if we want to try to give the essential basis of primary education, without which no other form of education can ever be successful, if we want to try to provide a good secondary education, and a good technical and technological education, then we have some very disagreeable choices to face.
I do not think we can get away from this problem by trying to deal with it on the basis of exchanges of responsibility between the Exchequer and the local authority. We may want to try to reform local government finance, but the total amount of money to be found will not be altered by changing the pocket from which one takes it.
Sooner or later, we have to face the problem of the total cost of education and of the things we do. I believe that it is possible to make certain administrative economies; and, indeed, by certain authorities they have already been made, largely by attacking the administrative costs of the divisional executives and at other comparable levels. I do not think that those economies can ever be very large, viewed over the whole country. I think that there are still a certain number of what, faced with the hard necessity of finance, we would regard as frills in education on which economies can be made.
Again, I do not think that those economies can be very large.
I am forced to the conclusion that in this field, as in almost every other field of public finance, we cannot secure economies which nobody is going to notice and by which nobody is going to be hurt. That is the disagreeable fact which we always have to face in economies in the social services. I am enormously afraid of what may happen in education if this problem is left to look after itself, if we keep on postponing decisions and never have plans made in our own minds and agreed, if possible, on both sides of the Chamber, as to what we are going to do when the real crisis comes.
I know well that everybody would like to feel that he could leave it to the other side to make the first proposals. I know that, because these are unpopular things. But I am quite sure that we ought to ask the Minister at this stage whether he believes that there is a reasonable chance that the present policies under the 1944 Act can be carried out with the probable revenue which will be at his disposal over the next—let us say, to limit it—two or three years without a serious decline in the standards of the education which is being given at all levels.
If he cannot give us that assurance, then I think it is the duty of everybody on both sides of this Committee to try to agree on a list of priorities in which we can see at the bottom certain things on which we may be prepared to economise; otherwise I fear that we are going to have the alternatives, either of a panic, emergency, unselective use of the axe of the Treasury which will fall on those things in education some of us may value most, or a progressive deterioration in educational standards which will benefit nobody and will make a mockery of the whole system on which we are spending so much money.
That, I know, is not a very happy thing to say. Again, I ask the Committee to believe that it is only my desire to prevent these calamities that makes me bring such disagreeable matters again to the notice of the Committee. But I should think—and I say this finally, because I have promised to sit down before 9 o'clock—that if we can educate the children with the available money from the ages from five to 15 only at the cost of a progressive


deterioration in quality over the whole range, then, in the interests of the children, in the interests of society, in the interests of our economic position, as well — because the education which children have up to the age of 15 does affect the productivity of industry throughout the country and the proficiency of the professions, as well—we shall be forced to consider whether we should not raise the entry age to five and a half at least. We may be forced to do that anyway, without admitting that we are doing it.
I should hate to see that 10-year compulsory school period reduced by even six months, but having gone through the list of expenditure on education over and over again, I cannot see how by cutting individual items here and there we shall make a substantial inroad into the educational budget. If it is a question of over-sized classes and inadequate primary preparation in education all the way, then I can see no alternative to taking the bold decision at some time and saying, "This is what we shall have to do." I am only putting these forward as questions which I should like to ask the Minister. If he can reassure us, well and good. I hope that he can, but I am very much afraid he will find it difficult.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: It is customary in these debates to congratulate one another that education at any rate is not a party issue. Indeed, that is true, and none of us would have it otherwise. Nevertheless, as I once said in a previous debate, though that is a good thing there is a certain danger in it, because there are certain causes for alarm in the educational world, and we should do no great service to our constituents or to the nation if we did not take this opportunity to voice those causes for alarm. In this debate a number of pertinent questions have been asked by hon. Members on both sides, to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reply in a few minutes; and I propose to ask a number of further questions before I sit down.
As we know, we are supposed to be debating the Report of the Ministry of Education for 1950. In spite of the gallantry of the defence of the Parliamentary Secretary, I think there is no answer to

the main criticism of the Report, that it says very little about education and very little about 1950. Neither I nor, I am sure, anybody else has the least objection to the Ministry taking this opportunity to produce a jubilee volume on the history of education in the first 50 years of this century. Our only objection is that that should be done at the expense of the Report at which we are looking.
As to the history itself, much of it is interesting; some of it is wittily written, and some of it is curious. For instance, there is the passage about the foundation of Ruskin College, as if human beings hardly walked the earth in any recognisable form before that gigantic event took place. Turning to page 72, where the recreations of boys are discussed, I read that
in the space of some 50 years, physical education in this country has passed through the stages of 'drill,' 'physical exercises' and 'physical training' to reach its modern concept, embracing not only physical training in the narrow sense, but also games, athletics, swimming and dancing, together with many such recreations as walking, cycling and camping, and ranging in scope from a subject of the curriculum to many recreational and adventurous activities.
According to my memory, I seem to recollect that boys swam and dived, went birds-nesting, and even indeed walked before the Labour Government came into power.
However that may be, the more important criticism of this Report is that it tells us so very little about education. Readers from this country will not apparently expect any more, but "readers from overseas," we are told, "may be expected to look first for a substantial chapter on educational methods and the curriculums in the schools. They will not find it." Indeed, all that we are told about education as opposed to the administration of education is the somewhat unguarded remark that
school inspectors spread abroad sweetness and light wherever they go.
I recognise, of course, the high origin of that quotation, but it seems to my taste a trifle "gooey." It is rather like saying that the games mistress is a little ray of sunshine. I appreciate perfectly the argument that it is not the business of the Ministry of Education to interfere with the freedom of either the schools or the local education authorities, but I cannot see what that argument has to do with


this particular point; I cannot see why we should not be told, as a matter of fact, what it is that the schools are teaching, and whether anybody is learning it. It is to those two problems that I wish to address a few questions.
There is the very basic question of literacy; whether people can, in fact, read and write. I cannot pass this over as easily as the Parliamentary Secretary would wish us to pass it over, by calling those who are concerned about it Jeremiahs. Indeed, I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary will get into trouble with his boss, if he talks like that. For it was the right hon. Gentleman who, very courageously, called attention to the fact of a drop in literacy. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot, in face of that, pretend that there is no problem.
When we raised this question of the drop in literacy, which has not been recovered since the war, the Minister of Education pointed out:
I would not take it as tragic if…the youngsters of today were not quite as good readers as children were 10 years ago. If they are not quite as literate in that scholastic sense, maybe in other directions they were far more capable of entering into the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 1728.]
Maybe they are, or maybe they are not, but that does not quite meet the point. The point is that we are paying two-and-a-half times as much for education as 10 years ago.
There is something to be said for people being educated and there is something to be said for people not being educated. But there is nothing to be said for paying through the nose for people not to be educated. Let us address our minds to the subject why the present position exists, and to the remedies. Is it simply that children are receiving less education today? They are receiving less education. It is true that we have raised the school-leaving age but we have also lengthened the school holidays. Rightly or wrongly, the children now spend less time in school than they did before the war.

Mr. Ellis Smith: They are smarter than ever they were.

Mr. Hollis: I take what the Minister of Education has said.

Mr. Tomlinson: I would not accept the statement that reading is the whole of education.

Mr. Hollis: There is obviously a very serious problem.
The second question that we should like to ask the Minister is whether the trouble is that we are not getting sufficient good teachers. We have heard a good deal about quantity of teachers, but we are much more concerned about the quality of the teachers. Are we moving into a situation where sixth forms will be fuller than they ever were before, while there will not be sufficient people capable of teaching them? How is the method of pool remuneration working out? Is the Minister satisfied that there should be no allowance for the class of degree which the university graduates have taken? My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), told me that before the war 66 per cent. of graduate teachers were of first or second class, whereas only 55 per cent. today are of first or second class. That seem a very alarming statistic. These are questions which I shall be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would answer.
Third, about the new examination. We have already had an argument about the age regulation and I will not go into that point again. But is the Minister satisfied that it is a good thing that there should be no distinction mark in this new examination? The more I think about this new examination the odder it seems to be. On the one hand the "Daily Herald" tells us that it is an examination in which no boy can fail. On the other, the Ministry of Education tells us that it is an examination in which no boy can win distinction. I am not quite sure, between the two, what exactly is the purpose of the examination. I know there are some people who have a great prejudice against examinations. The prejudice is found particularly among parents who were not very good at them themselves in their own young days. It is a great mistake to submit too tamely to what I might call the "Ploughed Parents' League."
I believe that it cannot be a good thing that there should be no way by which a boy or girl can gain any distinction by working better than his neighbour. I doubt if cricket would be a more exciting or a more popular game if one gentleman in Whitehall were to decree that all the members of both cricket teams must be credited with the same number of runs, so that there would be fair shares for all.
The way that this examination system is working out is really egalitarianism of the insane. A more competitive element in that examination would be a good thing.
The fourth point on which I should like a comment from the right hon. Gentleman is that which has been raised assiduously, both today and on other occasions, by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King), and to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred—the question of getting boys and girls to stay on at school. It is a large question and I have little to add to what has been said already, but it is important that we should be able to get quite clear on what is the policy of the Minister of Education on that point.
When he was first questioned about it he said:
I do not think, however, that it is one which can profitably be dealt with by legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 2141–2.]
I have no quarrel with that answer. My concern at the moment is not whether I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but whether he agrees with himself. When he was away, for reasons which we all regret, the Parliamentary Secretary said, on 21st June, that nine private Acts had been passed which enforced legislative penalties for withdrawal from school. When asked, later, whether any of these Acts had ever been enforced the right hon. Gentleman said:
There was only one case, I think in Huddersfield, which was upheld by the court. I do not know what was upheld.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1951; Vol. 490, c. 610.]
It is not very definite, but it seems, at any rate, that there were what my friend Mr. Ben Travers called in one of his plays "goings on" in Huddersfield. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what special sweetness and light there is in the air of Huddersfield which makes it possible to do these things there which cannot be done in, shall we say, Luton. Did the suggestion work out well at Huddersfield or did it not?
Now I come to ask the right hon. Gentleman a fifth question which has been running through the debate, the question of the comprehensive school.

I do not want to re-travel all the ground which hon. Members have been traversing during the afternoon, but I want to be quite certain of the view of the Minister and the Government on the comprehensive school, and the view of the Socialist Party. They all seem somewhat confused with one another. In particular, does the right hon. Gentleman still stand where he stood on 7th January, 1949, when he wrote his letter to the Middlesex Education Committee in which it was quite apparent that he thought there were greater difficulties about the problem of the sixth form in the comprehensive school than his hon. Friends who produced this pamphlet apparently think today?
The Parliamentary Secretary invited us to give our opinions about the comprehensive school. I am quite ready to give mine. My opinion is very much that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke), I am not converted to it. I entirely accept the sincerity of what hon. Members have said today about it being supported by them on purely educational grounds. It is idle to pretend, however, that it is defended on those grounds. It is often defended on political grounds. That is a matter of fact, and I do not think it is a good thing that educational experiments should be undertaken on political grounds.
But I am not impenitently opposed to the scheme of the comprehensive school if someone can produce a scheme. What seems to be perfectly clear is that if we are to have a comprehensive school, there are certain questions which have to be answered: the sort of questions that were set out by Mr. Jacks in his letter to "The Times" last week. We have to explain how we are to get a reasonably sized sixth form without having an inordinately large total school.
We have to explain how, in a school where some of the children leave at 18 and others at 15, we are to give to the children of 15 that share in responsibilities of school life which is so important a part of education. We have to explain how we are to make this transfer from stream to stream without causing that ill-feeling which, we are so often told, is caused when there is a transfer from school to school. There are these practical questions to which answers must be found.
It seems to be quite obvious, whether we read the pamphlets of hon. Members or the debates in the London County Council, that no serious attempt has yet been made to face up to these problems or to find the answers to them. Until we have the answers to those questions in our minds, the comprehensive school, it seems to me, is not an experiment but is just a blind swipe. I have the greatest objection to having these blind swipes carried out at the expense of the children and at the expense of schools which have a proud and valuable tradition.

Mr. J. Johnson: We do not wish to convert anyone on the Opposition benches. All we say is this: in the tradition of English educational history, let us have an experiment. Coventry, Southend, the London County Council and many other go-ahead L.E.A.'s have schemes and are beginning to build their schools. Let us, with an open mind, see how they succeed.

Mr. Hollis: Until the answers to these question are sorted out, it does not deserve to be dignified by the name of an experiment.
I listened with very great interest, as I always do, to the speech of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), who showed us very clearly that there are very great difficulties about the problem of the selection of boys at the age of 11. But he did not show any glimmering of reason why the comprehensive school was the solution to that problem. The last thing I want to do is to throw any discord amongst the educational experts of Southampton, but it seemed to me that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, approached this problem in a much more realistic spirit than did the hon. Member for Itchen.
Both of them are well aware of the problem. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test, had some most valuable suggestions to make as to how it could be solved, quite irrespective of comprehensive schools or grammar schools, whereas the argument of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, seemed to me to be a non sequitur.
Let me try to show the hon. Member my difficulty. A few months ago, two pamphlets were brought out, one by the Ministry of Education called "Reading Ability," and the other by some hon.

Members of the House, or whoever else brought it out, called "A policy for secondary education." It is very interesting that in the Ministry of Education's pamphlet there is a very exact statistical computation of what sort of schools are performing the most fundamental of all educational tasks most efficiently.
In the Socialist Party pamphlet, there is an account of the sort of schools that they want to abolish. I need hardly tell hon. Members that those two lists exactly coincide. The pamphlet of the Ministry of Education has the sub-title, "Some suggestions for helping the backward." The Socialist Party's pamphlet might well have the sub-title, "Some suggestions for handicapping the forward." I must confess that I prefer the policy of the Ministry of Education on that point.
The whole point is, let us see how the two tally up to one another. We open the Socialist Party's pamphlet and read:
On the contrary, we hold that school becomes colourful, rich and rewarding just in proportion as the boy who reads Homer, the boy who makes wireless sets and the boy without marked aptitude for either, are within its living unity and a constant stimulus and supplement one to another.
We open the Ministry of Education's pamphlet and read:
Duller children are liable to discouragements in any kind of school where they are in company with those who are much more able.
Which is right, and under which flag does the right hon. Gentleman stand? Does he stand with the Socialist Party, or does he stand with the Ministry of Education? I do think it most important that we should know and I greatly hope that he stands with the Ministry of Education on this point, because, with the greatest respect to the hon. Member who with some rashness claimed the authorship of the pamphlet it seems the most complete farrago of flapdoodle which I have ever read in my life.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) is not in his place. He is always telling us to look at the comparison with Eton. The fact of the matter is that Eton is very much too big. It has other advantages, but in itself it is too big and, indeed, I am surprised that the hon. Member should wish to submit other children of the nation to similar disadvantages simply so that they might be handicapped in competing with old Etonians. That seems a levelling


down of the worst sort. My point about the comprehensive school is not that someone can say they are right or they are wrong, but that they demand the working out of certain problems which up to the present have not been worked out and answered.
To these five questions I shall be grateful for an answer. There is a sixth question of a somewhat different nature and I fully appreciate that it may not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give an immediate answer today. If it is possible I shall be delighted. That is the question of the voluntary schools, upon which I would like to say a word. I think no one in any quarter of the Committee is not anxious to make any contribution that he or she may be able to make to prevent the recrudescence of that sectarian strife which has been such a great enemy to the cause of religion and of education.
I think everyone will agree that the 1944 settlement said, broadly, three things. It said, much more clearly than had been said before, that education ought to have a religious basis; secondly, it laid down certain financial arrangements, inevitably of a compromise nature, for dealing with that difficult problem of different sorts of schools and, thirdly, it gave a promise that the voluntary schools should not be administered out of existence.
As we all know, unforeseen problems have laid a burden on the voluntary schools a great deal heavier than was foreseen at the time of the 1944 settlement. It is also obvious, whether we like it to be so or not, that it is not practical politics in the immediate future, or in such a Parliament as this, entirely to overthrow the whole system of religious education in this country and practical politics only allow us to hope to get through a solution which is within the spirit of the 1944 settlement.
Is there a line upon which that problem can hopefully be approached within the spirit of the settlement? I believe there is. The general principle of denominational education in this country is that a denomination had to find the cost of building their own buildings and gets 50 per cent. for their maintenance. But it was recognised, even in 1944, that

there would be a special problem of the displaced pupils in the years after the war.
In point of fact that problem has proved a much graver one than had been foreseen. Nearly all the building that will be done for the next 15 years will be for displaced pupils. In order to give special treatment there Parliament introduced Section 104 into the 1944 Act by which special grants were to be made to schools that could show that they had a substantial number of displaced pupils. The Home Secretary was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education when that section was introduced, and he will remember that it was accepted unanimously by the House at that time.
In the form in which it was first introduced in the House it was almost exactly suited to what the voluntary schools want to have today. Then an Amendment was introduced, in another place, calling itself a clarifying Amendment, not in any way changing the sense of the definition, but in fact changing it very considerably. It meant that a displaced pupil's grant could not be obtained unless there were not only a number of displaced pupils in the new school, but that there was an old school which had lost a large number of those pupils, which made the provision a great deal less valuable.
This is not the occasion to dictate what the precise wording should be, but there could not be a point on which the voluntary schools could more justly say that what they are asking for is in the spirit of the 1944 settlement because what would suit them perfectly would be for the Section to be put back exactly as Parliament considered it rather than, by what is little more than an accident of wording, for it to be as it now runs in the present Act.
If that could be done—I am not prepared to say what precise wording should be used, the Minister could not take a decision until he has consulted all the interests concerned—I believe that the sectarian issue could be taken out of politics for 15 years, and if it is taken out for that length of time I sincerely hope it can be taken out of politics for good. If we were able to do that, whatever verdict history may pass upon this Parliament for any of our other activities we should, for that at any rate, be remembered with gratitude.

9.28 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): Quite a large number of questions have been asked and I will do my best to answer them. I had better begin by answering, or attempting to answer, those that were first asked by the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh) because there has been a tendency for them to be duplicated. The same question has been asked time and again and the only way in which it will be possible to deal with the numerous questions by 10 o'clock will probably be by lumping the answers to specific questions together.
With regard to the production of the Report providing a 50 years' survey, I am a little surprised that Members should take it upon themselves to criticise the fact that we have taken this opportunity of reviewing 50 years' progress in education. It was not that the Ministry were seeking any plaudits for it; it was that it appeared as though the time was ripe Fifty years is a decent length of time over which to present what has taken place. Someone suggested there is nothing in the Report about 1950. If that is so whence have come all the questions that have been asked?

Miss Horsbrugh: It was because the matters were not in the Report that we had to ask the questions.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am blamed either way. If we put so much in the Report about what is being done, we are criticised because there are no questions to ask; but when we leave the position so that there is an opportunity to ask questions and receive answers, that is wrong, too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) paid special attention to those few chapters about those who have been interested in education during the whole of the 50 years and who have taken part in the fights and work together. I think that this Report is worth while. I am glad that the story is on record, even if it meant that we could not say quite as much as some hon. Members wanted us to say about 1950. The year 1950 is one of the 50 years, and some of the things referred to are brought right up to that time.
There was a suggestion that there had been an increased call on the rates and this year that the increase was greater even than

the increase in taxes. That is explained by the fact that the reduction in expenditure which has taken place relates primarily to tax-borne expenditure and the increase—mainly in teachers' salaries —relates to rate-borne expenditure. I should like to make a few comments without being considered facetious.
I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) in facetiousness. I do not think that I could compete tonight. I am not feeling up to it, in the competitive sense. But I should like to ask a question of hon. Members who have been interested in educational administration for a long time, as I have. Whenever was there a time in the last 50 years when the rates were not too high? Has there ever been a time in the last 50 years when some education committee did not think that we were spending a lot too much money on education? Has there ever been a time when there was not discrimination and distinction between different local authorities?
I had the privilege recently of visiting a grand little authority. For the first time in my life I went to the Scilly Isles. Some hon. Members are worried about the troubles they are having. In the Scilly Isles a Id. rate brings in £25. It would not send some hon. Members to a conference; yet in the Scilly Isles they are facing the responsibility of attempting to implement the 1944 Act, and they are producing a development plan.
I do not want to suggest that there are not some Jeremiahs in education, but hon. Members should not imagine that we are always up against a crisis simply because education is costing a little more money than it used to do. It was bound to cost more money. The question whether it should be rate-borne or tax-borne is one which will have to be faced in the future. But hon. Members should make no mistake about it. It is linked up not simply with education but with the whole of local government finance.
The local education authority is the local authority and not the education committee It is not for me to take the initiative, as one hon. Member suggested. In reply to the hon. Member who asked whether I could give an assurance that the programme as laid down for the next two years could go ahead without danger of crisis, I would say that I think it can.
I think that we should be foolish to begin to think in terms either of raising the age at which children enter school or reducing the leaving age. As a matter of fact, I should have to see a crisis right on top of me before I contemplated doing a thing of that sort.
Furthermore, I will say that if, in deciding whether or not the age ought to be raised, we had taken the view that was expressed by the hon. Gentleman tonight, I question whether the age would have been raised, and if the problems that have presented themselves in the last four years had been presented to the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he introduced the Education Bill of 1944, I question very much whether that Act would ever have been placed on the Statute Book.
We have to remember the increase in the birth rate, and the problems of buildings and teachers which that increase has created, which has brought about a situation in which the implementation of the 1944 Act has had of necessity to take second place. It must take second place because of the fact of the provision of places; this is not a laughing matter, and one does not need to be a Cambridge don in order to appreciate it; it requires only common sense to see that this amounts to the setting up of a new system of education for at least a million people.
Therefore, I say that, in thinking in terms of the increase in rates, and while I admit the point that they have increased, because of the recent increase in the numbers to be provided for and the buildings that have to be provided, I do not think we need to be down in the mouth about it or imagine that our educational system is coming to an end.
The next question that was asked by the right hon. Lady was about what is being done in regard to technological education. She asked whether I had made up my mind to do anything or not. Her question relates to one Report, and she asked me whether I have made up my mind what to do about one particular recommendation in that Report. I want to say, that at the moment I have not yet definitely made up my mind on what I am going to do on that. I do not want the Committee to be under any misapprehension that, because one has

not made up one's mind on what to do in a particular direction, no developments are taking place in technical and technological education. They are going on all the time.
There are some people who are more interested in what is going on in America than in what is happening in this country. They talk of what is taking place over there, because they have had the privilege of going to see. Massachusetts College has been mentioned, and I am not saying that it is not a fine college, but I do say that they are not turning out any better people there than we are in this country. Maybe we could do with more buildings, and we will get more buildings.
What I want to say is that the numbers for whom provision is being made are going up every year, but the response on the part of industry has been very good. I pay my tribute to the employers in industry for the way in which they have responded to the appeals that have been made, and for the co-operation which we have received, in connection with the number of National Colleges which we have been able to start, as the result of the interest and the willingness to pay on the part of industry.
I shall come to a definite conclusion before long on what the line should be, but I can say that we have consulted many important organisations and bodies, all of which have a different way of solving this problem, and therefore I do not think it is asking too much that the Minister should at least make sure that he is right, rather than that he should be in a hurry to come to a decision.
Another question that was asked related to the dental service.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Can the Minister tell us about the alleged cut in the technical service, as there is some anxiety on that matter?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not think we need worry unduly about the alleged cut in technical college buildings. I have been asked on several occasions to be more precise about the cuts in the programme which will result from the increasing pressure of re-armament. The simple answer is that there are not going to be any cuts, except in the sense that the size of the programme will not increase quite as rapidly as we would have liked. I cannot say exactly what projects


we should have carried out if all had gone as we hoped, nor in just what areas the impact of building for defence purposes will be most severely felt; but I can say that we are going on with a building programme of roughly the same size as the present year's programme, and that this will enable us to provide for most of the urgent needs of technical education at all levels. We are also taking steps to obtain better value for money in this form of educational building.
With regard to this question of school building, there was what appeared to me, at any rate, to be some doubt on the part of one or two hon. Members about the figures because of the economies that had been made in the provision of school buildings and the price at which they were being planned or obtained today compared with the price at which they were built in 1947–48.
I am not going to say that there may not have been some extravagance on the part of some authorities in the early days after the war when we were beginning to get school building under way. The costs began to mount, and three years ago what might be described as a research department at the Ministry was established with a view, not only to working out the building of new schools, but to bringing together and planning for the first time for the purpose of education a school building itself.
Up to then all schools had been built by the local authority's architect according to his own ideas. The result has been that for the last three years, and with the co-operation of the local authorities, we have been able to produce plans, and by new methods and in some instances by building different types we have been able, first of all, to reduce the cost—last year by 12½ per cent. and this year by 25 per cent.—of school building compared with 1948.
It does not need a mathematician to realise that we are getting 25 per cent. more places for the same money, and that therefore the school places that will be available will be available as a consequence of the change that has taken place in the methods adopted. I wish to thank the local authorities for their co-operation and our own architects and the people at headquarters who have

been responsible for this research and for making it a practical proposition.
With regard to the question of dental and other treatment, it is perfectly true that when the National Health Service was introduced it had the effect of interfering with the school dental service which had been built up over the years. It was bound to have that effect. I, personally, am sorry about it, but when we add a large comprehensive scheme, and when, as has been said, there are not sufficient dentists to cover the whole country, then dentists, being human, go to the best jobs. That is what it amounts to. We have lost something like 250 school dentists, and to the 717 who remain I want to say publicly tonight, "Thank you for having remained with the children." We have now got an agreement under which better salaries are being paid. I hope we shall be able to build up that service again, but it depends entirely upon the response to the appeals being made based on the new salary rates.
I now come to the question of school nurses. The right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side asked about school nurses. So far as we are concerned the rest of the school medical services have gone on almost unimpaired. That is not a strange thing because the dental service was in such a different position from the general medical service. It is perfectly true that school nurses do a great job and what might be described as a peculiar type of job. In this country one can tell a mother that a child is suffering from art incurable disease and will not last more-than six months and she will take it without a flinch, but if one tells here that the child has nits—that is a dirty head—she will go off the deep end.
It is for that reason more than any other that school nurses, particularly in some districts, are doing a good job. I remember quite well from my own experience as Chairman of a Committee one incident which has always stayed with me when this question was being discussed. I was asked by a director of education one afternoon to attend a meeting. I went into the room and found the medical officer sitting on one side and the director of education on the other. I was in the chair. I did not realise until I was there that we were going to interview women about children with dirty heads. The first lady who came in weighed about 14 stone and with a ges-


ture of rolling up her sleeves she asked, "Who said my child was dirty?" I was the only one who replied and I said, "Well, I did not." My admiration for the school nurses has never died from that day to this, because I know some of their difficulties.
Another question asked during this debate was about voluntary absenteeism on the part of children. This is a new name for running away from school. I could never understand it when it is called truancy. I assure the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side that it is very small. We have made inquiries at quite a number of places and strangely enough the age she gave is not the age at which it is general. At any rate in Birmingham, one of the places where a great deal of research has taken place on this question, the age at which there is any of this—and it is very small—is something between nine and 10 years and not the later age.
Several hon. Members mentioned voluntary schools and the hon. Member for Devizes referred to them. I pretty well agree with what was said on this question of the denominations having to find large sums of money over a period of years. I think that to re-open the general settlement of 1944 would lead to a situation which no party in this country could really face. But—and I cannot say more than this at this moment—I have before me certain proposals for meeting some of the particular difficulties which are being most acutely felt by the denominations at the present time.
I am considering these proposals very carefully and, of course, sympathetically. I cannot yet say what my decision will be and hon. Members therefore will not expect me at this stage to make any statement about it. Further, I should like to make it clear that in any case I should not contemplate any changes that would interfere with the general settlement. I think the Committee will appreciate that when we can find a basis upon which some alleviation can take place, it will be to the advantage of education generally in this country.
The question of village schools was raised. I appreciate what has been said about the value of the village schools to the community of which they form an important part. Not only is the village

school to be considered as an entity, but its value to the individual child, as well as to the community and to the denomination of which it is part, has to be taken into consideration. I do not think we are entitled to retain the small village schools at the expense of the opportunity of the children who attend them. If two or three can be grouped together so that the educational facilities can be given without involving too much travelling for the children, I am all in favour of this, but simply to retain a village school for the sake of retaining it at the educational expense of the children would be a mistake.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Before the Minister leaves the question of village schools, I should like to ask him a question. I have taken some part in this controversy. Would he give an assurance that this contemplated programme of the closure of 1,800 village schools will be regarded by him with great hesitation and that he will exercise his power, if necessary, to stop the closure of, at any rate, a large number of these schools?

Mr. Tomlinson: These proposals have been put forward by the local education authorities. In every instance when a proposal has come forward for the closing of village schools up to now, I have personally considered the matter myself, and unless I have thought there was justification for it I have objected to it. I should do the same in the future because I know the feeling in this matter.
The question of the size of classes is linked up of necessity with the question of the provision of buildings and of teachers. Unless and until we can increase the number of teachers to the extent required, there can be no real inroads made into the problem of larger classes. As to the value of the smaller class, I think everybody is convinced, but the build-up of the teaching profession in order to meet this problem is not as simple as would appear on the surface.
Generally speaking, we have met the claims of the schools in respect of the raising of the school-leaving age and the additional 380,000 children which that involved, by the emergency training programme. But we cannot have two emergency training programmes in one generation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why


not?"] Because the emergency does not arise, and the people to whom the appeal can be made and who would be needed for training, are not there.
As a matter of fact, we are attempting to find candidates for the permanent colleges and are offering facilities to those who would be in the position of emergency trained teachers had an emergency taken place during the last few years. The progress that has been made, in that we have doubled the number of women, for instance, who can be trained each year, is an indication of the way in which this question has been tackled.
There is only time for two or three other questions. May I first of all say a word on the secondary schools? I was interested in the questions that were asked about the tests which are made at the age of 11-plus. Nobody can determine the future of a child of 11 years of age. I question whether we can determine it at 13; I question whether we can determine at any age what will be the ultimate future of a child.
What I do say is that a change has taken place in the last few years because of the passing of the 1944 Act. Prior to 1944—and this was brought out in a speech from the opposite benches today—children could obtain places in secondary schools not only by merit, by examinations—which incidentally were not talked about nearly so much as they are now—but, if they did not pass the examination, they could buy a place. It is because the places are not now available to be bought that we are in trouble —and I realise the trouble.
As to how it can be overcome, I am one of those who believe that there should be a review at 13. In many of the places a review is taking place at 13. Surrey have put a proposal in their development plan to begin on a common basis and make the change at 13, but the parent whose child at the age of 13 does not get into the secondary school will think it just as big a swindle as he thinks the present system is. Make no mistake about it: we cannot change human nature in that sense. Any mother believes her child is as good as the child next door and, if her child fails, she will believe there was something wrong with the paper or that those who marked the papers did something which ought not to have been done.
I agree that it should be on a different basis than just whether the intelligence test is passed or not. I remember fighting for years in order to get away from the oral examination, because I was strongly under the impression in my younger days that when a lad had been brought up in a poor home and had not been taught to speak correctly he was at a great disadvantage when he came to answer questions before the headmaster of a grammar school.
Generally speaking, the intelligence test took the place of the oral examination. Whether we have gone from the frying pan into the fire, I do not know. Comments have been made about some of the questions which are asked. I once put an intelligence paper before the whole of my education committee at home. Only one passed, and he was not the chairman. By and large the authorities do not rely on the test alone, and I am glad that that is so.
I turn in the last three or four minutes to the comprehensive school. I am one of those who believe that it is impossible to be dogmatic about this question. I do not think we should dogmatise and say that either one method is the best or that another is the best. What we have to do is as we have done all along—experiment, but not throw away the things which have proved themselves before we begin our experiment; carry on the experiment at the same time. That is the objective and—make no mistake about this—it is not what either the Conservative Party or the Labour Party in their policies suggest shall happen in this field which will determine the issue. Those local authorities responsible for the development plans and the re-organisation of their education will decide.
Each local education authority must decide how its secondary education and its secondary schools shall be organised. I want to see them started in the best conditions, both comprehensive schools and other schools. I rely upon them—upon the grammar schools and upon the secondary modern schools—to provide the additional number of people not only to meet the requirements of the professions but to meet our requirements for more teachers.
As one who visits schools practically every week, I would say, in spite of anything said in the Committee, that the children of this country are not only the


bonniest but the best children I have come across at any time. If the hon. Member opposite, who is a little pessimistic because he happens to be sitting in this House of Commons and looking at his pals regularly, will come with me some day—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is looking at hon. Members opposite."]—well, even if he is looking at hon. Members on these benches, I invite him to visit the schools and to come back refreshed.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Sparks]—put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PRICE CONTROL AND OTHER ORDERS (INDEMNITY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr. Speaker, this Bill is introduced in consequence of two Rulings which you gave declaring that two Orders were not properly made. They were made by the Board of Trade and by the Ministry of Supply. I should at the outset like to apologise to the House on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade, who is unable to be here owing to an appointment which he must keep. My other right hon. Friend, I think, will be here at any moment.
The two Rulings which you gave, Sir, were, as to the first of them, given on 4th April, 1951, that an Order, the Iron and Steel Prices Order, 1951, S.I. No. 252, made by the Minister of Supply under Defence Regulations 55 and 55AB was not properly laid; and the other Ruling which you gave was on 19th April, 1951, and that was with regard to S.I. No. 413 of 1951, and you equally ruled that that Instrument had not been properly laid. That was the Utility Apparel (Maximum Prices and Charges) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1951; and that was made by the Board of Trade under the Goods and Services (Price Control) Act, 1941.
Your Ruling, Sir, was based on the circumstance that certain documents called Related Schedules in the case of

the Board of Trade Order and Deposited Schedules in the case of the Iron and Steel Order were not physically laid with the Orders themselves; and, Mr. Speaker, I think I interpret your Ruling aright as proceeding upon the general principle that Orders could not be said to be properly laid when something which constituted an important part of them was not laid with them.
Mr. Speaker, the Government were hound—and, of course, readily and immediately did—to accept your Ruling, and the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Supply, when your Rulings were brought to their notice, took steps, in the case of each of the Orders to which your Rulings related, to re-lay them with the relevant Related and Deposited Schedules, in the case of the two Orders.
When we came to consider the scope and effect of your Rulings it became immediately apparent that they were of a very wide application, and the question arose how far they extended. We instituted careful inquiries to see how many previous orders were covered by the principle which your Rulings enunciated. The result of our inquiry was this: that it was found in the case of the Board of Trade orders that your Rulings would cover Instruments going back as far as 1942; that is to say, in the case of orders laid under the Goods and Services (Price Control) Act, 1941; and back to 1945 in the case of Board of Trade orders made under Defence Regulations 55 and 55AB.
The House will notice that we have set out in Parts I and II of the First Schedule to the Bill the respective orders made under the Goods and Services (Price Control) Act and under the Defence Regulations by the Board of Trade. In the case of the Ministry of Supply the orders were made under Defence Regulations 55 and 55AB. The effect of your Rulings was to cover those orders back to 1946, and the Ministry of Supply orders are those set out in paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the Bill.
As the House will see, there are a very considerable number of orders in question; they run to something like 250. In those circumstances, there arose the further question: whether it would be right and proper that the Government, having made the error to which your


Rulings called attention, should come to the House and ask to be excused for that error, and for an Indemnity Bill to be passed. It is to ask the House to excuse those errors—misinterpretations of the existing statutes, particularly the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946 that we now come to the House to ask that this Indemnity Bill may be passed.
The Government took the view—and I hope the House will agree that they were right in so doing—that here was a clear case of failure to do what the statute enjoined; and you, Mr. Speaker, had ruled perfectly clearly that that was the case. Not only was that the case, but it would be hardly practicable to re-lay a number of the orders within the scope of your Rulings, as we re-laid the orders to which your Rulings in terms related.
The situation was therefore similar to, and in some respects more serious than, the situation which was dealt with by the National Fire Service Regulations (Indemnity) Act, 1944. The effect of your Rulings was that a number of orders had not been properly laid; and indeed are, as a result of your Rulings, up to this moment not properly laid. Some of those orders were still operative; some were operative in amended form; some had been operative for a period of time and had subsequently been repealed.
As I have already reminded the House, research showed that there were a considerable number of orders which fell within that category. In those circumstances, what we thought would be right would be to follow closely the precedent which was set in the 1944 Indemnity Bill which became the National Fire Services (Indemnity) Act, 1944. We accordingly modelled this Bill, which I now commend to the House, upon that precedent, not merely because it was a precedent but because we thought that it was a precedent which was perfectly right and proper in the circumstances, and that we should accordingly follow it.
The error to which your Rulings, Mr. Speaker, called attention was really an error in a somewhat narrow compass, and the considerations in the case of those orders made by the Board of Trade and those made by the Ministry of Supply were not really quite the same. I think I am rightly interpreting your Rulings in saying that the general principle was similar, but the circum-

stances affecting each set of orders differed in some particulars, and I think the House would desire me to deal in a little detail with the two types of orders.
I start with those made by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade has for a long time followed the practice of fixing the price of particular goods by taking, in the cases of wholesalers and retailers, the purchase price and adding a percentage to that price. But for a number of utility articles, apart from that price an over-riding maximum price is fixed, and it has been the practice to set out those over-riding maximum prices in documents to which I have previously referred, and which are mentioned in the Bill, namely, related schedules. They are separate documents which are not physically printed as part of the order; they are independent documents printed and published separately by the Stationery Office.
Since 1942 or thereabouts it has been the practice of the Board of Trade to lay the related schedule in question only together with the order which first brings it into existence. The order which first makes the Related Schedule operative is laid and together with it is laid that related schedule. Then, when subsequent orders are made, a subsequent order may bring into operation new related schedules. In that case it has always been the practice to lay together with the new related schedule.
Sometimes, however, the new order refers for some reason or another to a related schedule which was laid with a previous order. For example, the previous order might have fixed a maximum price, say for two articles, to take a rough example, gloves and shoes. By reference to the related schedules laid with that order, a subsequent order wants to change the price of gloves but not of shoes. What it does is that it changes them by introducing in respect of gloves a new related schedule, which is accordingly laid with the order; but, in the case of the shoes it retains the previous price. It does so simply by making a reference to the old related schedule. When that was done, the old related schedule was not laid.
To summarise: Only new related schedules are laid with a new order which brings those new related schedules into force. When the new order makes reference to an old related schedule the


practice has been not to lay again the old related schedule which has already been once laid before each House of Parliament. The effect of your Rulings, Mr. Speaker, was that in such cases the failure again to lay the old related schedule invalidates the laying of the subsequent Instrument and that order, as I have said before, procedes upon the general principle that something which was an important part of a subsequent Instrument was not related with it.
In the case of the Board of Trade Order upon which you ruled, the House would no doubt like to have the facts. There was a principal Order, which was Statutory Instrument No. 216, 1951. It was the Utility Apparel (Maximum Prices and Charges) Order, 1951. That Order fixed maximum prices for wholesalers and retailers for utility apparel. This Order
refers to six related schedules. Three were laid with it and three were old schedules which had been previously laid.
This Order was amended by Statutory Instrument No. 296, 1951. It was the Utility Apparel (Maximum Prices and Charges) (Amendment) Order, 1951. This Amending Order substituted two new related schedules for two of the six referred to in the principal Order and those two new ones were laid. Then came the Order on which you ruled. That was No. 413 of 1951, the Utility Apparel (Maximum Prices and Charges) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1951. That amending Order, the No. 2 Order, introduced two new related schedules which were laid and referred, in the way that I described earlier, to the four old ones, that is to say two which have survived from the principal Order and two introduced by the first amending Order.
The four old ones, which, the House will realise, had already been previously laid, were not relaid with this Order. It was this failure to relay with No. 413 which, in the terms of your Ruling, had the result of causing Statutory Instrument No. 413 to have been not properly laid.
With regard to the Ministry of Supply Order, your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, related to the Steel Prices Order, 1951, Statutory Instrument No. 252. I should tell the House what the practice of the Ministry of Supply has been, because the considerations differ somewhat in the case of the two Ministries. They have laid orders fix-

ing the prices for iron and steel, the orders being made under Defence Regulations 55 and 55AB. This they do by referring in the Order to independent price lists. Until the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, was enacted there was no obligation on the Ministry of Supply to lay orders at all, but as from 10th December, 1945, when that Act came into operation Ministry of Supply Orders had to be laid.
To comply with this requirement the Ministry of Supply laid before both Houses copies of the price lists which had been enacted by orders brought into operation theretofore and they so laid them amended up to the date when they were laid in pursuance of the requirement imposed by the 1945 Act. These documents are extremely bulky—in the aggregate they run into many hundreds of pages, if not more.
The difficulty arose with regard to amending the prices in those price lists after the 1945 Act required them to be laid, and the practice of amending prices in those price lists was the following. To avoid recopying a large and bulky document, a slip containing the amendment was pasted on to the schedule—they are called deposited schedules and not related schedules—which it was desired to amend. It is pasted on to both the copy in the possession of the Minister and on to the copies in the possession of the two Houses of Parliament. The slip is so worded as to say that the old schedule with the slip attached is to constitute the new substituted schedule.
It is in this way that the amendments have been made ever since 1945 and indeed, before, but it is only became material to consider them after it was necessary pursuant to the 1945 statute to lay them. This practice was followed, but the advice in terms of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, was that there was no physical act which could be pointed to as constituting a laying again of the old schedule when, by pasting a slip upon it, it was transformed into the new schedule. The only thing that could have been said to have been physically laid before the House was the slip and not the schedule upon which the slip is pasted.
It will be apparent to everybody that the dividing line is a particularly narrow one. To show how easy it is to transgress the terms of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker,


perhaps I might indicate to the House that supposing one went to the place where the price list is deposited with the House, and took it away and put the slip on it and then brought it back, that, I apprehend, would have constituted a perfectly proper laying. But in terms of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, to do merely what was done—that is to say, to hand in the slip or paste it on to the price list without taking the price list away—was insufficient to comply with the Act.
Unfortunately, in the actual case in which you ruled, Mr. Speaker, there was a further error in that the slip which was put on the old Schedule unfortunately, owing to inadvertence, did not contain the words which had the effect of adapting the old Schedule as a new one. We apprehended, Mr. Speaker, that your Ruling covered both defects and we thought in those circumstances that it would be proper to draft the Third Schedule to the Bill upon that assumption, so as to cover both those two defects which you indicated in your Ruling in the method in which this laying had taken place.
With regard to the actual form of the Bill, Clause 1 is expressed to indemnify both of my right hon. Friends. I should —I must be perfectly frank with the House—call attention to lines 27 to 30 on the second page. The House will observe —I make no attempt to conceal the fact—that that is what is sometimes described as an omnibus Clause, and the House will desire, no doubt, to justify putting into the Bill something which is an omnibus Clause and which has the effect of curing the failure to lay should there ultimately come to light any similar failure to lay in any other instance.
Our justification for asking the House to accept the omnibus Clause as part of the Bill is that both my right hon. Friends have made a very great deal of research to try to bring to light all orders Which were covered by your Ruling; and so far as we know, we have discovered all the orders which could be affected in the case of these two Departments, which would seem to be the only two Departments which would be affected.
I would seek to justify the omnibus Clause by simply submitting to the House that supposing it should transpire that our researches have failed to discover some order, it really is hardly reason-

able and hardly in the public interest that we should be required to come back to the House again to ask for another indemnity Bill to be passed. It is perfectly true that there was no such omnibus Clause in the National Fire Service Regulations (Indemnity) Act, but the case there, of course, was very different. That was a case in which there was simply a failure to lay owing to inadvertence; the Instrument in question simply had not been laid.
But this is a very different thing. As I have tried to explain, we are here in the realm of extremely subtle legal doctrine, and it is not at all easy to say exactly what the implications of your Ruling are, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, if I may respectfully say so, there must be limits to the application of the doctrine. Perhaps I could indicate the kind of limits there must be by referring to examples
Supposing, for example, to take an extreme but a perfectly possible case, there was an order which provides that a particular term used in the order is to have the meaning which is given to it in the Oxford Dictionary. Supposing there was an Order in that form—there might be, but it is unlikely—or that there might be an order which incorporates some other work like that by reference. Obviously I would apprehend that it could not be said to be necessary, to comply with the Statutory Instruments Act, that one would have to lay a copy of the Oxford Dictionary or of any other work of reference of that sort, and I am quite sure that the House would accept it. And I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that that is entirely in consonance with the Rulings you have given
Equally, there may be Instruments which refer to Acts of Parliament or to previous Instruments which they amend, and I do not think it ever has been suggested, or that it would be suggested, that merely because an Instrument refers to an Act of Parliament one has to lay a copy of the Act of Parliament with the Instrument. I think that that would be perfectly in consonance with your Ruling but, perhaps, pushing the application of it a little too far.
One can go even further and say: What is the position when an Instrument refers to a previous Instrument and amends it? Is it invalidly laid because


one does not lay with it a copy of the previous Instrument which it amends? One is drawing, perhaps, a rather fine distinction, because the Related Schedule which should have been laid and was not laid really forms part of the previous Instrument, which, in a particular case, may have been amended. But there is your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and the distinction is one which we must try to draw, and we have tried to draw it. I call attention to that in support of my submission to the House that it is not unreasonable to ask the House to include an omnibus Clause in the Bill.
My reason is that it is extremely difficult to find exactly what are the limits of the doctrine and that it is perfectly possible, after making the fullest study and research in the matter, to go wrong in the case of a particular order. I hope the House will agree that it is not unreasonable for us to ask for an omnibus indemnity in case it should transpire that in the case of any of these orders we have made a mistake.
Hon. Members may ask why subsection (2) is necessary. Personally, I think there is little doubt that failure to lay an order does not invalidate the order, but in the case of the National Fire Services Indemnity Act almost exactly the same situation arose and the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) who, I believe, is to speak, will remember that he took part in that debate and the then Attorney-General, Sir Donald Somervell, now Lord Justice Somervell, dealt with almost exactly the same kind of problem I am putting before the House tonight.
He said that the reason why, even though the orders might be perfectly valid although not laid, was that he thought it was generally constitutionally proper and desirable that, there having been an omission to comply with the requirements of an Act, the Government responsible for the omission should come, as did that Government, and ask to be excused for their non-compliance and because I adopt precisely the same line of reasoning, I urge on the House that it is right and proper to ask for this indemnity, which we now do.
We might have taken the course of saying that, as the Instrument was valid although not properly laid, there was

no real need in the light of your Rulings, Mr. Speaker, to ask for an indemnity, but I think that would be improper constitutionally and propriety would require, having failed to do what the Act required us to do, that we should come and offer our excuse to the House and ask the House to say that we should be indemnified with respect to what was not really inadvertence—not forgetfulness, or anything of that sort—but an error in failing to appreciate properly the true implications of a statute which is by no means easy in some implications to construe. For these reasons I venture to commend this Bill to the House for Second Reading.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Attorney-General has explained at some length the difficulties the Government have apparently experienced in laying certain kinds of Statutory Instruments, but it is conceded for the purposes of our discussion tonight that whatever may be the limits of the doctrine following upon your Rulings, Mr. Speaker, no fewer than 183 Statutory Instruments have, in recent years, not been laid in accordance with the statute.
In those circumstances, I am sure that everyone will agree with the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government, having failed to do what they were required to do by Act of Parliament, should come to the House and explain the circumstances which led them to follow that course of conduct.
That, indeed, was the course first taken in 1944 by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, who was then Home Secretary. He came to the House in July of that year and explained what had occurred with regard to the Fire Services Regulations, which had not been laid, purely by inadvertence. It was only later that a Bill to provide for an indemnity was brought before the House. This, consequently, is the second occasion on which the House has been asked to consider a Bill to indemnify Ministers and on this occasion a Bill to indemnify two Socialist Ministers because they have been compelled to confess that they had failed to comply with the statutory duties imposed upon them by Act of Parliament.
The last occasion was only in relation to 23 regulations which had not been laid in war-time. Compared with the number of regulations, that was a comparatively small matter. If my calculations are right, the number we are concerned with here is 183 Statutory Instruments, only 12 of which were made before 1945. I should have thought it a serious matter to have to admit that a Minister has failed to comply with the requirements of a statute. Here, we have a failure to comply in 171 cases since 1945. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has explained how it came about, but I proceed to consider this position on the basis that it is clear that 183 orders have not been laid as required by statute.

The Attorney-General: I was not attempting to try to apportion such blame as there is in this case. If it is the case that 183 Statutory Instruments have not been laid since 1945, they have not been laid in accordance with a practice which began in 1942, when the present Government were not in office.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I quite appreciate that: one has only to look at the Schedule to see that. But it is one thing not to lay these Instruments properly in war-time. What we are being asked to do here is not only to consider the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation of why this has happened, but also to consider whether a Bill of indemnity should be passed. That raises different considerations from the question of what was the cause for these Orders being improperly laid.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to what he called the omnibus Clause in the Bill. No doubt a certain amount of consideration will have to he given to that, but apart from the omnibus Clause covering other regulations which have not as yet been discovered to have been improperly laid by these two Ministries, subsection (1) goes so far as to cover similar regulations by any other Ministry.
I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have been able to tell us whether there were any similar regulations with related schedules laid by any other Ministry. If there are not, then it would seem unnecessary to give this omnibus cover to any other Department, although in view

of what he said as to the difficulty of defining the limits of the doctrine, there may be some case for a general extension of that kind to these two Ministries which, he says, were the only two Ministries to lay Instruments of this sort.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he followed the 1944 precedent, it is worth bearing in mind that he has departed from it, in this respect. I am sure he will agree that further consideration will have to be given to the point and to the actual form of words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he took the view that the failure to lay these orders in conformity with the statute did not affect the legality of the Orders as originally made. That view was first expressed by the Foreign Secretary in 1944. He said then that so far as he was aware there was no sanction for failing to lay orders in that case and that their legality was not affected.
If that be so, then one wonders what really is the need for this Bill of indemnity. It is a different thing from the Government coming to the House and making an explanation. When we have a Bill of this character it is one which we should consider seriously, even at this late hour. In 1944 a similar Bill was the first Order of the day. Tonight we have to discuss this indemnity Bill at a later hour, but, at the same time, it is our duty to consider it fully.
If it is the case, and it is the view of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, that all these Statutory Instruments have had legal effect from the day they were made, notwithstanding that they were not laid in proper form, then it seems to me difficult to justify the inclusion of subsection (2) of Clause I, because that subsection would seem to me as it stands, and on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view, too, to be of no effect whatever. It is one thing to say there must be an explanation; it is another to say there must be an Act of Parliament.
No doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman has considered this point carefully, and if it be the case that it is there for the avoidance of doubt, the subsection should be in a different form. Quite apart from the question of legality, there is also the question of what we are being asked to indemnify Ministers against. The right hon. Gentleman the


Foreign Secretary said in 1944 that there was no sanction for failure to lay. If there is no sanction for failure to lay, is there any need for this indemnity? If the orders are legal—and I think that is agreed—what action can be brought in respect of failure to lay in proper form?
I should have been interested to have heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say about that. The indemnity is drawn so wide in this Bill to indemnify against any possibility of criminal or civil proceedings. Unless there is any real risk of action being brought there would not seem to me to be much need for subsection 1 of Clause 1. While I do not in the least dissent from anything the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the desirability of an explanation of the circumstances which led to these errors, I do suggest to him that more justification is required before a Bill of this character is passed by the House.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made considerable reference to the related schedules and other schedules given under a different title. The Bill itself refers to analogous documents and other documents. It may be the case, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to say that all these documents, making in total the Statutory Instruments which were not laid properly, because they were laid at different times and in different parts, are available to hon. Members of the House. If they are not, I suggest to him that, notwithstanding all the defects there might have been in the past, he should give an assurance that the Statutory Instruments which are now in effect, should be made available in their complete form so that Members of Parliament and the public can secure or refer to them.
I have asked a number of questions about this. I suggest that any Bill asking for an indemnity is one which should be given serious consideration and particularly when the need for that indemnity has come to light after these matters were, I think, first raised on Prayers in April of this year and in consequence of a Ruling given by you, Mr. Speaker, which has made it abundantly clear that these 183 Statutory Instruments did not comply with the Act in that the Ministers

responsible did not lay them in proper form.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: The Attorney-General put the case for the Second Reading of the Bill clearly before the House but with a great expression of doubt, as I understood him. I do not follow altogether why the Bill is necessary. The Attorney-General raised three objections himself that might reasonably have been expected from this side of the House against the Bill.
The first is that the orders that have been laid are valid. If they are valid why do we need an indemnity Bill at all? The next point he raised is that in his view the omnibus Clause becomes necessary. Taking the illustration he used about the Oxford Dictionary, supposing the order referred to the dictionary meaning of a specific word and that dictionary meaning was the meaning in the Oxford Dictionary, he would not lay the Oxford Dictionary.
I find it hard to draw the line between that and a criticism of the actual Rulings which you made, Mr. Speaker, making the orders in question invalid. If that be a valid illustration by the Attorney-General that must be a criticism of your Rulings and it is inconsistent with the position of the Bill. The second point is that the Attorney-General himself finds that Clause 2 appears to be unnecessary. Therefore, on the three counts there seems to be no justification for the Bill.
But I want to draw attention to another phrase in the Bill beyond that. It is in Clause 1 (1) which says that these people are
each of them…hereby freed, discharged and indemnified from and against all consequences whatsoever, if any, incurred "—
Then come the words:
or to be incurred.…
They are to be indemnified not only against something which has already occurred in the past, but we are to indemnify them against anything which might occur in the future.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The reason for putting in the words
…or to be incurred…
is that consequences of some past Order may arise in the future. People affected under that Order may still be affected in


future and in an indemnity Bill one must cover the future consequences.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: But the Attorney-General says that these Orders are valid. If this Bill is passed then they will be valid by virtue of this Bill, so that any prosecution in future will be prosecution after this Bill becomes law. Therefore, why not throw out these words
or to be incurred…
since they cannot refer to this Bill?

Mr. Hale: They are clearly necessary if one is to have a valid indemnity to cover all cases whether they occur before or after the passing of the Bill. This raises the question we shall discuss later, of the conflict between the High Court of Parliament and other courts of the Realm. Parliament is the judge of its own ruling and to leave matters to be challenged in a court of law would surely be undesirable.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Once the Bill becomes law that settles the matter and the courts cannot challenge it. The Clause and subsection (2) particularly are unnecessary; indeed, the whole Bill is unnecessary, if the Orders are valid. This matter ought to be looked at again.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Lionel Heald: I would not oppose the passing of an indemnity Bill where it is shown to be reasonably necessary. I think it was made clear by the Attorney-General that it is constitutionally desirable that, where it is admitted that Ministers have made an error, and legislation has come into being in an improper way, it should be made clear by Parliament that Parliament has decided to overlook the matter.
After all, there is this good reason for it: that it is still possible for Ministers to be impeached. Perhaps one of these days we shall see that happen if Ministers make a habit of doing this. That is why this indemnity Bill is required. It is also the fact that the Minister could be said to be guilty of a common law misdemeanour, and the courts have recently decided that the limit of two years was a mistake. They said that there was no limit. I understand that the Attorney-General was solicitious for the welfare of his brethren. So there is good reason for an indemnity Bill.
But I would like to emphasise that the Attorney-General said that this was not

a very grave case. It is the old excuse, made in a very different connection, "It was only a little one." I would suggest that there is no differentiation in this case. If it is necessary to have a Bill, it is a very serious matter. It means that laws have been brought into force without the necessary formalities being complied with, and that it is considered necessary by the Government solemnly to introduce this very remarkable legislation.

The Attorney-General: I did not say that this was not a grave case. I drew a distinction between a case, as in 1944, where the failure was due to inadvertence, and the present case, where the failure was due to misunderstanding of the true effect of statutory law in a difficult field of legal doctrine.

Mr. Heald: I would have thought that the reason why a mistake was made was immaterial. I hope that no hon. Member thinks that I am making capital out of this. It is the fact that Ministers have had to admit that a mistake was made. What I am saying is that the fact that a Bill is necessary requires the House to regard the matter with care and attention —and with no less care and attention because the Bill is required through a misfortune and a difficulty, as is suggested.
Before the House agrees to give the Bill a Second Reading, I would suggest that we ought to insist upon steps being taken to put the whole matter of statutory orders into proper shape: that it ought not to be possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give us a very lucid and complicated explanation of the difficulties, and on the question whether a particular label was fastened to a particular piece of paper by a certain time. The House of Commons has been unable to tell what is the content of these various orders. If the House of Commons is unable to do that, what is the position of the unfortunate people in the commercial world who have to proceed under these orders? I suggest that the first thing we ought to do this evening is to demand that the Government should overhaul the whole procedure of laying these orders and the schedules connected with them.
The other point to which I should just like to refer is that some of us were rather surprised—those of us who are newcomers to the subject—that when the Government admitted that 183 orders had been wrongly laid, or not dealt with in


the proper manner, the matter should be dealt with after ten o'clock at night. That is dealing with the matter in an almost hole-and-corner fashion, and some of us felt that we should have to apologise; perhaps apologise for getting up and talking about the matter.
We wondered why that should be, but for myself, when we were told of the precedent of 1944, I carried out some investigations of my own because I thought there was an earlier precedent than that. I found that as far back as 22 years ago, the Prime Minister introduced an indemnity Bill for the purpose of protecting his Government from the results of having five Under-Secretaries in the House when it should have had four. The matter was treated as one of importance, and there was discussion on it; and not only the Prime Minister appeared, but Mr. Stanley Baldwin, Mr. Lloyd George, and Sir William Jowitt, and a number of other prominent hon. Members took part. What was said by Mr. Baldwin on that occasion might explain why the Government, this evening, thought that this matter was -not important enough to bring on during the day.
Mr. Baldwin was then Leader of the Opposition, and there was a Labour Government on this occasion of precedent. Mr. Baldwin said on that occasion:
While 60 years ago this question might have afforded a pleasant subject for debate for days, today the situation is different. It might have been very culpable to have made such a slip, a regrettable one, 60 years ago; it is today much more understandable, and while 60 years ago there might have been blame attaching to so admirable a Government as that of Lord Palmerston for not having seen this grievous wrong, today so many are the faults of the Government that it does not matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1929; Vol. 232, c. 2213.]
Today, so many are the faults of the Labour Government that it does not matter if there is one more. Is that not the least of the reasons why we are asked to deal with this matter as one which is so small?

10.54 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I am anxious to take part in this debate because I think I was the first person, as a result of your Ruling on Statutory Instrument No. 143, Mr. Speaker, to say that an indemnity Bill was necessary. I think that all of those of us who have

been in the House at all for a considerable time are a little blameworthy because I remember 24th August, 1939, when I was on holiday, and learned through the B.B.C. that your predecessor, at the request of the Government, had called a meeting of the Commons that day.
We were summoned technically by the "London Gazette," but, in fact, by the B.B.C. It was all because of the disgraceful appeasement treaty between Hitler and Stalin and we had a general debate on the situation and out of the cubby holes of the Committee of Defence there was produced the Emergency Powers Bill. That Bill passed through all stages in this House and in another place and received the Royal Assent before we went home, three hours after it was introduced. It was unfortunate. We were standing in front of the "tapes," gossiping in the Lobbies, talking in the Smoke Room, and doing all the things which the House does at a time of great emotion, and very few of us took any active part in the discussion on the Emergency Powers Bill.
Looking around the Chamber tonight, I should say there are probably fewer than one-third of right hon. and hon. Members present now who were present on that very emotional occasion. If we had only taken more trouble then about the emergency regulations, this problem would not, in all probability, have arisen. I see the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), nodding in agreement.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We have to remember the atmosphere and the circumstances then.

Sir H. Williams: Certainly, but that was when this trouble began.
We had before us then a Bill of the utmost constitutional importance, which passed through both Houses of Parliament and received the Royal Assent, in only three hours, and this afternoon I checked it in HANSARD. I remember suggesting to some of those in authority afterwards that a Joint Select Committee of both Houses should be appointed to examine that great mass of emergency legislation—we used to pass 10 bills a day—and to examine the orders made under them. My suggestion did not meet with much approval.
Everybody was emotional, and it was not until about two years later that some


of my hon. Friends and I decided to form a little group to examine delegated legislation. Over that period, we have between us examined some 30,000 orders, which is not an easy task. But, after a bit, one gets somewhat expert at it. We discussed all the snags when, I think, the then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, came to the House in the whitest sheet he has ever worn, and apologised. I pay him every tribute for apologising about the great mistake made over the National Fire Services Act. There was a great irregularity and on the 1st August, 1944, we had a debate in which I took part, and the Government of the day thought it sufficiently important to bring the debate on as the first Order of the Day.
I think it is an absolute scandal that this constitutionally important Bill was not started tonight until 10 p.m. I agree the Government is in a jam for time, and we are inclined to be a bit forgiving because we want to get away on 3rd August. But this is a Measure of the utmost constitutional importance and I was promised in answer to a Question that this Bill would be presented to Parliament before the 30th June last. We did not get it until the 18th July. The Bill should have been before us three weeks ago.
Let me take the minds of hon. Members back. We had a rather lively night on the 8th-9th March when we had a number of Prayers on the subject of rising prices and, on that occasion, I moved the second of those Prayers on the subject of related schedules. The Home Secretary dashed out to the Vote Office and came back with a whole number of copies of the wrong related schedules. The correct ones were not available. That is the first time we got rather interested in related schedules.
When Mr. Speaker, on that day in April, said that Statutory Instrument No. 413 was not there, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) was told by you, Sir, that he could not pray against what was not there, the Government got into a real jam. I wish hon. Members opposite would take more interest in this problem of delegated legislation instead of making disorderly noises when we speak about it.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: And walking out.

Sir H. Williams: After all, these orders are just as important as Bills, and yet Members opposite think it is a lovely joke to interrupt us when we speak on them. I have devoted part of my time as a Member of the House and part of my time when I was not a Member—but was anxious to help hon. Friends of mine who were Members while I was not—to the study of this problem.
Now the Government are in a jam. The interesting thing is this. We had from the Attorney-General and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. ManninghamBuller), the interesting indication that this Bill is not necessary. Where are we? We pass Acts of Parliament in which we lay upon the Executive, in certain cases, the obligation to make affirmative orders. That is easy: they have got to do it. In the majority of cases the provision, however, is that they can be objected to by Prayer within a specified number of Parliamentary days, now generally 40.
Now we have this stated to us: that if the Government fail to lay orders in proper form they are legal for all time, though this democratic Assembly is deprived of its powers to move Prayers against them. That indicates to me that the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, must be amended, because otherwise the whole procedure is a complete farce.
Members on both sides, irrespective of their party affiliations, will agree with me that if the House confers upon Ministers the power to make laws by delegation, and provides that Parliament can challenge those laws, it becomes completely monstrous if, through the failure of Ministers to go through certain motions, the House is deprived for all time of the right of opposing those laws. That is the complete dictatorship of the totalitarian State. Therefore, my purpose tonight is to ask that the Government—or the Government to be from this side of the House—shall take into the most urgent consideration the necessity of amending the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, in such a way that if there is a failure to lay delegated legislation, so that hon. Members are prevented from praying against it, the delegated legislation shall lapse within some period or another.
We are told by the Attorney-General and by my hon. and learned Friend—and I had some conversation with him earlier, and I think that he is right—that all these things we are validating tonight have been effective law all the time, though it is necessary at this moment to move a Bill to say that all those who have committed these breaches of law are not guilty. I think that that is a state of affairs so monstrous that this Government or a future Government must take into account providing against a repetition of such a scandal. Both sides of the House are involved.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We all know that the hon. Gentleman is an outstanding example, from the Conservative point of view, of hon. Members who have taken the keenest interest in this matter. I am speaking from memory, and if my memory is at fault perhaps the hon. Gentleman or some other hon. Gentleman will correct me, but I remember that a Committee was set up to examine such orders as these before they were laid on the Table. If I remember rightly, the advice of Sir Cecil Carr was available to a great extent. Would not that machinery have enabled the Government to have avoided this mistake?

Sir. H. Williams: It was the group of Members I founded, of which the present leader is my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), whose absence, and the reason for it, we all regret. He had an operation yesterday and I am glad to say that he is making good progress.
It was as a result of our activities during the war that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments was appointed —with very restricted powers. After 1945 that Committee was re-appointed with rather more extended powers. That was largely due to the Foreign Secretary, to whom I pay tribute for that. The Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, improved the situation because it unified the whole procedure, and brought under review a great deal of delegated legislation that previously could not be prayed against.
That Committee, the Chairman of which, the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), is present, and who, I hope, will take part in this debate, still has very restricted powers. They have

the guidance of the counsel to Mr. Speaker, to whom the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has referred. I look through these orders every week; there are up to 50 in some weeks; and it does not necessarily follow that that Committee, with all the assistance they have at their disposal will become aware of the fact that a document is incompletely laid. What I am suggesting is that if a mistake is made in laying and that mistake is revealed, then obviously it should not be regarded as good law for eternity.
The point made by both the Attorney-General and my hon. and learned Friend in their persuasive speeches makes it perfectly clear to me that these things have been valid law all the time, and yet the House has been deprived of that opportunity conferred upon it by statute of praying against them. That seems to me to be a complete denial of the democracy in which both sides agree. and I therefore very much hope that as a result of this debate, urgent steps will be taken to examine the terms of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, so that in due course we shall have a statute which protects not merely Ministers but the public interest. After all, lots of people have been fined under these Instruments, for the making of which we are indemnifying Ministers, but we are not returning the fines of those people, or compensating them for any imprisonment they may have undergone, because the Attorney-General has said that they were valid all the time.
I have tried to make my protest, I hope in moderate terms, but nevertheless with some measure of passion, because I have taken a tremendous interest in this problem for 10 years. I hope that as a result of this debate we shall, in due course, pass an Act of Parliament which will put the whole thing on a satisfactory basis.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The very fact that the learned Attorney-General has had to stand at the Treasury Box and offer, as he did very handsomely, the apologies of His Majesty's Government and to seek the authority of this House for the validation of 183 specified Statutory Instruments, as well as an unknown number of unknown ones, surely makes clear beyond doubt, if it makes clear nothing else, that the


confusion on the subject of delegated legislation requires urgent and immediate action to clear it up.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald) said, if hon. Members in this House are in a difficulty in this matter, what about the public outside? But I thought he did not go far enough. It is not only a question of the difficulty of this House in understanding the matter. It is the fact that even the Government, with all the assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown, and the legal advisers of the great Departments of State, can go wrong on this—and that, indeed, is the origin of this Bill. In such a situation it simply is not good enough for the Government to come to the House and ask for legislative sanction for the indemnifying of Ministers for their failure to carry out the law and leave it at that.
Before the House gives its consent to this Bill, and gives the Government the indemnity that they ask for, I hope that we shall get from the Government a statement that, in the somewhat unlikely event of their being in a position to carry out the undertaking, they really will, if belatedly, tackle this whole subject of delegated legislation, because a situation in which even the Law Officers of the Crown have to get up and say, "Well, it is all very difficult to follow the exact implications of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker," really is not good enough in a sphere of legislation which affects the every-day lives of every trader—and, indeed, every person in this country.
I thought that the opening of the Attorney-General's speech was infinitely preferable in its tone to the way in which this matter has previously been dealt with from the Government Front Bench. The House will recall that on 24th April the Leader of the House, now the Foreign Secretary, in reply to a Question on this subject, said:
It is very far from clear that the practice which has been followed since 1943 of laying with any order, referring to separate schedules, only those schedules which it brings into force and not those which it continues in force and which have been previously laid, involves any irregularity on the part of anyone which would require indemnifying legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 203.]
I must say I was very much relieved that the Attorney-General, in moving the

Second Reading of the Bill, said that there was here a clear failure to do what the statute enjoins. That, at any rate, is some progress, but I think it would have been more seemly if the Attorney-General, in coming to the House, and in offering the apologies of the Government for the misuse of power given to it by the House, had been generous enough to pay some tribute to those of my hon. Friends by whose efforts, and by whose efforts alone, this matter was brought to light in the first place.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been altogether fair he would have said that had it not been for the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and others, who, by raising these matters and by seeking your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, brought to light any irregularity, there is not the slightest doubt the matter would not have been brought to light at all.

Mr. Paget: Has the extraordinary incompetence of the Opposition that this situation displays occurred to the hon. Gentleman? Here are 173 mistakes made by the Government, and not one of them is spotted by the Opposition.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am interested in the hon. and learned Gentleman's definition of incompetence. As I understand it, incompetence consists in spotting an error only two months before His Majesty's Government spot it. If that is his definition of incompetence, I accept the charge, but for the hon. Gentleman—one sometimes forgets the prefix "learned"—that in this particular context is fantastic. Here is a Government equipped with all the advice of the Law Officers and the legal departments, making its own orders, and the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests the Opposition have been incompetent because, without any of the technical assistance open to the Government, they find out an error the Government never found out at all, and would not have found out had it not been for the efforts of my hon. Friends—

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman


is making a better interruption than the last, but I will chance it.

Mr. Paget: Does the hon. Gentleman realise, or has he not been attending to the debate, that the sole charge here with regard to the Government is their inherited maladministration? The Opposition, whose function it is to be the watchdog, missed all 173 cases.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot even be accurate on the figures. It is 183.

Mr. Paget: Only 173 since the Labour Government took office.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be assuming that because certain of his hon. and right hon. Friends thought fit to be in Opposition in 1944 all his colleagues were in opposition. He has not paid sufficient credit to the patriotism of some of his own leaders who were, of course, members of the Government at the very time to which he refers.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne) rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should like to finish with this point first.
I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has very closely studied the Bill, because he will see that the statutes whose interpretation the Attorney-General said in this context were so difficult, are Measures for which this Government were responsible—the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946. Both these Acts of Parliament were put forward by this Government and they alone are responsible for their defects.
The less the hon. and learned Gentleman applies his ingenious mind into researches into the past, and the more he seeks to attract to himself a small corner of the white sheet in which the Attorney-General was draped, the better. I hope that before this debate ends we shall have some acknowledgment from the Government Front Bench of what my hon. Friends did in this matter, and I hope we shall have it in generous terms.
This Bill is one of the most remarkable that even this Government have pre-

sented. There are few precedents for a Bill whose Preamble is twice the length of the Clauses, and when one recalls that the object of the Preamble is to state the reasons for the initiation of the Bill one can understand why that should be so. But it is really not good enough to do two things which the Bill does in addition to the necessary indemnification of persons.
The first is what the Attorney-General called "the omnibus provision"—or what the Leader of the House might call in another context "the last omnibus provision." The right hon. and learned Gentleman sought to defend it by saying that there might conceivably be an order, so far not traced, but which it was desired, none the less, to cover. If that is so it makes something of a sham of the orders in the Schedule. What is the use of listing scrupulously in the Schedule the orders it is sought to validate, and then to slip in a few innocent words to cover orders which might have to be validated?
I do not think it is good enough on an indemnity Bill, which is a serious Measure, for Ministers to seek to extend the provisions to cover any mistake or error they may have committed. It surely is sufficient to indemnify them for the error they know. If they find a few more, as no doubt they will, then let them come forward and seek indemnification for them. But it is quite wrong, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot give an example of any order which this particular provision is acknowledged to cover, none the less to put it in the Bill in case one should turn up. I hope that at a later stage the right hon. and learned Gentleman may put up a fuller justification of these words than he was able to give tonight.
The other point concerns subsection (2) of Clause 1. I understand that we are here validating all these orders, whether they are in effect or not. I do not know—and the Attorney-General did not tell us—how many of the 183 orders are still in effect. I hope the Solicitor-General will tell us, because that does set the problem a little bit in proportion. I make a distinction between those orders no longer in effect where we are simply trying to prevent trouble being caused in relation to matters whose effective consequences


are over, and cases in which orders are still the law of the land.
All those orders have not or cannot have been properly laid. I see no reason in the case of orders which are still the law of the land, and which have not been properly laid, why they should not be laid now, and why their validity should not depend on their being laid now. There are two strong reasons for that. As my hon. Friend below the Gangway has said, the failure of Ministers has deprived the House of some measure of control over these Measures.
If we are to indemnify Ministers for their failure surely we are entitled to demand the restoration of our rights in so far as it is physically possible to do so. It is not possible to do so in respect of orders no longer in effect and I do not refer to them. But I see no reason why orders which the Government desire to keep in effect as part of the law of the land, and which, ex hypothesi, they have failed to lay properly before the House in the proper form, should not be laid and should not be subject to ordinary Parliamentary process.
Another practical advantage is this. How is any citizen—trader, worker, or whoever is concerned—to find his way through the morass of the law? If laid with schedules attached in the proper way, orders will be properly available and properly reprinted and bound in the volumes of Statutory Instruments and it would be possible for those who desire diligently to inquire into these matters to find out what is the law of the land. But if they are not laid—and we know these have not been laid and have never been properly related to the schedules attached —how can anybody find out what is the law if he so desires?
It seems to me that two advantages would be obtained by having relaid—or perhaps I should more particularly say—laid for the first time, all orders which the Government desire to keep in effect under this Bill. Parliament will thereby have re-asserted its rights, and when Parliamentary sovereignty is being challenged in many parts of the world, that is no small consideration. In the 1944 case the orders were relaid and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who apparently regards everything done in 1944 with such uncritical enthusiasm, will no doubt regard that as an encouraging precedent.
I put this to the Government and to the House. The Government have come and asked to be indemnified for their errors. It is manifestly in the public interest and for the avoidance of confusion that in due course they should be indemnified, but the House should equally insist on their rights of Parliamentary control of delegated legislation, of having orders laid before them. It is equally important that we should try to get this branch of the law into some understandable and available form.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I think I have heard most of the indemnity Bills during a considerable number of years. This Bill is different in three ways from the other Bills I have heard discussed. First of all, it is not a Bill for indemnifying any person or one or two persons for one fault; it is a mass indemnity of many people for many mistakes over many years. The second difference is that when we have had a mistake of this kind in the law before, it has always been brought up for debate by the Government early in the day, so that the country might know that the Government have made a mistake and that it is being put right.
Tonight it is being deliberately brought up when it will get the least possible amount of Press publicity. The third difference is that always before when we have had a Bill of this kind, the Minister who has brought it in has done so with a full sense of apology, which the House expect on these occasions, and with a full meaning, without trying to make mistakes seem little errors. I only wish that I had had at school the capacity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make my mistakes sound so little to my teachers. I should have had a much easier time if I had. I never heard a Law Officer of the Crown make less of a serious affair, which ought to have been published at the proper time and with proper discussion. Those are the three differences between this Bill and a normal Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said we are giving indemnity to those Members of the Government who have made mistakes, but what about the people who have been


prosecuted under the illegal orders? Are they to be given back the time they spent in prison, if they were sent to prison for an alleged offence under these orders? Are they to be given back their fines? They had not broken the law, because it is not the law of the land until these orders have been laid properly. The Government have been solicitous about their own indemnity, but have they taken any action to indemnify all those prosecuted under the illegal orders?
They must have taken trouble about this Bill and have found out about that clear point which they realised must be raised in the course of our proceedings. They have no right to come to ask for indemnity for themselves, unless they are prepared to let the House know how other people have suffered. This Bill shows that we have in this country, instead of clear and simple legislation, complicated legislation, backed by orders so innumerable that it is impossible for Parliament to know about them.
That is the position we have got into, and whatever Government is in power in the autumn—and it will not be the present one—will have to turn its mind to cleaning up our procedure for rules and orders so that they are simplified to the extent that the House of Commons can understand them and are not of such numbers that it is impossible for the House of Commons to understand them, except for a few experts, or for the ordinary citizen to follow them because of their multitude.
It is a very big question the House, of Commons will have to examine and decide in future. Unless it is done there will be endless confusion in the law. Nothing is worse than having a Minister break the law, thus bringing the law into contempt, and for this reason the House will have to deal with this urgent matter. The Bill will be passed with the usual courtesy which the House gives on these occasions, but I welcome the opportunity tonight of protesting against the system which creates it.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Although my interest in this matter arises from the fact that for the last 18 months I have had the honour of being Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory

Instruments, I must disclaim any pretence to speak for the Committee. As far as I can recollect I have not discussed, the matter with any Member of the Committee; indeed, it would have been, highly improper for the Committee to have considered this Bill, as it would have been outside their terms of reference.
I have not had the advantage of a legal training, so I will not say much about the steps the Government have taken to get themselves out of the dilemma in which they find themselves. Rather I shall address myself to the real causes of the dilemma. As far as the remedies proposed in the Bill are concerned, I cannot for the life of me think that the Bill is necessary. It does not validate anything that was invalid. All it does is to relieve certain Ministers of the very slight risk of being charged with a common law misdemeanour in not having done something Parliament ordered them to do. I should have thought that risk was minuscular, and that it hardly justified the immense amount of research in the Departments, and the immense thought given to the subject before the Bill was introduced.
The really interesting question is how this dilemma has arisen. The answer I venture to put before the House is that it has arisen owing to the practice, which I can only call pernicious and dangerous, of indulging in related schedules and deposited schedules. I do not think anybody knows the difference between,hose two, and I shall refer to both as related schedules. Related schedules are not Statutory Instruments. They can point to no parent in the sense of an Act of Parliament or a Defence Regulation. Legislatively speaking, they are illegitimate. Defence Regulations 55. 55AA and 55AB do not authorise them, and it is impossible for anybody by any research to find any justification or legalisation for them.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Member has great experience, but it is not fair to say they have no parents.

Mr. Nicholson: No. I suppose everything has a parent, but they do not know their father. That is the trouble. The fathers of the related schedules cannot be traced. They are excrescences in the field of delegated legislation. They have been


allowed to arise for reasons of Departmental convenience, and the result has been to allow Departments to indulge in delegated legislation in a more slack and less tidy way than otherwise they would have done.
If there had been no related schedules this Bill would not have been necessary. I ask for an assurance from the Government that in future Statutory Instruments will be self-contained. There is no reason at all why everything contained in a related schedule should not be contained in the original Instrument. Statutory Instruments must be self-contained if they are to be understanded of the people.
On the more general question of the confusion in which the whole field of delegated legislation finds itself there would be material for many and long speeches. I do not propose to go on for very long. The measure of the confusion may be found in the fact that this House has set up a Select Committee to deal with delegated legislation, and that, on the average, that Committee see well under half of the Statutory Instruments that are promulgated. It will be found that during this Session they have seen about 5/13ths of the Statutory Instruments that have appeared and have the force of law.
The whole field of delegated legislation is in a complete muddle. Some years ago a Select Committee on Procedure was set up. It reported in 1946 and expressed the hope that a proper inquiry would be set on foot to bring some order into this department of legislation. I plead with the Government, and with the next Government, wherever it may come from, to give us that inquiry, and to try to consolidate this branch of law. Many of these Statutory Instruments are issued under legislation, or derive their authority from, legislation passed before either the negative or affirmative Resolution procedure was envisaged.
I could give many examples of that. There is no common body of policy linking all these parent Acts together; no standard line of procedure is laid down. The result is that delegated legislation is haphazard and higgledy-piggledy. One gets confusion and rulings from Mr. Speaker, which cause these sort of Bills to be brought forward. One will get confusion among the people who have to order some part of their lives by dele-

gated legislation. For the man in the street these things are really of greater significance than Acts of Parliament. For Statutory Instruments govern the lives of the ordinary man and woman more than statutes do.
I hope that the House as a whole will take warning from this sorry story. It is a sorry story when the Government have to bring in an indemnity Bill of this nature. The whole subject needs to be inquired into and ought to be cleared up. As a start, I would urge the Government to give me an assurance that in future Statutory Instruments will be self-contained, and that the related schedule will become a thing of the past.

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of MR. SPEAKER from the remainder of the day's Sitting.

Whereupon Major MILNER, THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

11.37 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It is with timidity that I, a simple soldier, intervene in this abstruse legal discussion. I feel particularly diffident because the learned Attorney-General has said what a difficult and complicated matter it is. If it is a difficult and complicated matter for him, it must be much more so for me. From my reading of the Bill, I assume that it is not applicable to Scotland. I hope that I shall have confirmation of that from the Solicitor-General, or whoever is to reply. I see that the Bill is presented by the President of the Board of Trade, supported by the Minister of Supply and the learned Attorney-General. There is no mention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, or of the Lord Advocate.
What we have heard tonight shows to what a dreadful state of affairs this delegated legislation will bring us. The Preamble alone, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said, is longer than the rest of the Bill. That, in itself, is a confession of something very wrong. To hear the learned Attorney-General, with all the ability at his command, trying to explain why different bits of paper which ought to have been stuck on were not stuck on, or which ought not to have


been stuck on and were stuck on, is an indication that something is wrong.
Can we have a categorical answer from the Solicitor-General, or whoever is to reply, to the question put by various of my hon. Friends: Who is indemnified by the Bill? We know that Ministers are. But what about the persons who may have been fined or imprisoned? What about the police, the magistrates, and others? Have any persons been imprisoned or fined under any of the orders, who ought to be indemnified just as much as the Ministers concerned?
The 1944 case, which I think was in the August, was the subject of what I might call an abject apology by the then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary. I notice a very different attitude on the part of the Government now because, far from an abject apology, they merely state that they have misconstrued some abstruse legislation for which they are responsible. What the present Foreign Secretary said in 1944 was:
There lies on every Minister a heavy responsibility to secure meticulous observance of a mandatory duty imposed on him by Act of Parliament. When Parliament has enacted that Regulations shall he laid, failure to comply with that enactment is a grave offence by the Minister responsible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 1218–9.]
These were the words of the then Home Secretary, but I noticed nothing so impressive in the excuse put forward by the learned Attorney-General tonight. The present Foreign Secretary's colleague, then Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, on that same day, said:
What the House wants to be satisfied about is that this kind of thing shall not happen again‥‥
and this was after the then Home Secretary had made his apology; Mr. Pethick-Lawrence later said:
I imagine that as soon as the matter was brought to the attention of the House by the necessity of introducing this Bill, they …
that is, the Departments concerned,
put their own house in order, but I think it would he just as well if we had a positive assurance from the Attorney-General."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1944; Vol. 402. c. 1223.]
These are two statements from two responsible right hon. Members of Parliament—one now of another place. The desire was that what had happened should not happen again. That was

what one assumed, but now we have the same thing on a far greater scale than in 1944, and one is entitled to ask if there is anything wrong with those in charge of Departments, or with the Departments themselves. When the learned Solicitor-General replies, I hope that we shall be told, conclusively this time, and not as in 1944, that Departments have been warned, and that administration has been tightened up to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again. I earnestly hope that we shall get that assurance, because free British people should not be penalised under laws and regulations made by Ministers who have not the right to do so.

11.44 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas): We have had a searching debate upon this Bill, and I should like, so far as is possible, to try to answer the numerous questions raised during the discussion. The convenient method may be to deal first with the questions raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), and those other speakers who, in a number of cases, reiterated the various points which he made.
In the first place, it is desirable to have a perfectly clear idea of the fault which occasioned the need for the National Fire Service Regulations (Indemnity) Bill; and that is not the same as that which occasioned this one with which we are dealing tonight. In the case of the former, the fault was that the orders were not laid
"as soon as may be", if I may quote the relevant words, because of inadvertence. The trouble with which we are concerned tonight is not that at all; the trouble here is the difficulty of appreciating precisely what was required to constitute a technical laying.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I never sought to suggest that the failure was the same. One was a failure in not laying at all and the other, in relation to these 183 orders, was in not laying them properly.

The Solicitor-General: Well, laying them inadequately. I do not wish to quarrel with the hon. and learned Gentleman over this, because the difference between what occurred in the National Fire Service Regulations (Indemnity) Bill and this Bill is clear.
I wish to show that it is not a repetition, on this occasion, of the fault which occurred on a previous occasion. I gladly acknowledge the candid observations of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), that we are all in this, that there are Conservative Ministers involved, as well as Labour Ministers, and that all parts of the House, in the exercise of their duty, cannot be considered completely free from the smallest shadow of responsibility. But that does not make it the less necessary to consider this in a very searching way, and I am not suggesting that for one moment.
May I come to the specific questions asked in the debate? The main and dominant question was with regard to the legal effect of not laying and the need for the indemnity which is connected with it. It is necessary to keep clearly in mind, (1), the legal effect with regard to the operation of the order; (2), the legal responsibility arising from not laying the order properly. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General indicated that his view was that the non-laying of the order does not make it inoperative. I can, perhaps, usefully refer, in view of the observations made in the debate, to the speech of the then Attorney-General at that time, Sir Donald Somervell, in the debate on the National Fire Service Regulations (Indemnity) Bill. With regard to the operation of the order, he said:
My hon. Friends took the view—and there is a good deal to be said for it—that the failure to lay, although a grave error and an omission on behalf of my right hon. Friend, does not invalidate the Regulations. You cannot say, 'This ought to have been laid on 1st June and it is now 30th June, and, therefore, it becomes invalid,' just as if it had been annulled by a Prayer. They say that, if that is so, the latter part of Clause 1 is unnecessary.
I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, while accepting that legal point of view, thought—and others have said the same—that, whatever the legal position, it was constitutionally right that, if there had been an omission to do what the Statute said should be done, it was right not merely that there should be a statement to the House, but that the matter should he dealt with in a Bill which the House could discuss.
I agree with that, and I would say that, although my two hon. Friends may be right on the legal position, it is possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, for an argument to be raised on the other side, and for someone to say that these words go to the root of the matter, and that if a substantial time had elapsed the court

ought to hold the Regulations invalid. Obviously, doubts must he cleared up, and that is done in the Bill.
I also agree with those who say that, although the legal position may be fairly certain, it is constitutionally right in the circumstances for the House to he asked to pass a Bill in these terms."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 1245–1246.)
Here, similarly, with regard to the operation, my right hon. and learned Friend has already indicated his view that the orders are operative under the relevant acts. Second, of course, it cannot be said that the matter is completely free from a single shadow of doubt. Third, when we come to consider the indemnity point, it is right, for the reasons which I need not reiterate, which were given so completely by the then Attorney-General in the passage I have quoted—it is constitutionally right—that the Government should come before the House and ask it for an indemnity, and not merely leave it to some explanation and a general debate of that kind. Therefore, I hope for these cogent reasons that both aspects of this Bill will commend themselves to the House—first, the aspect of indemnity, and, second, the aspect that the orders should be made operative without any shadow of a doubt at all attached to them.
Now I pass on to some of the other questions that were raised. Both the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northants, South, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) raised the question of the omnibus cover for other Departments. A full examination has been made. We have tried to find out any order which bears a resemblance at all to the orders which we have here scheduled in this Bill. As far as we know, these are really the complete orders. There are no others at all that we know of; it is very unlikely that there is any other order.
The reason for including this omnibus provision is that given by my right hon. and learned Friend in opening the debate. I can only repeat what he said—that it is undesirable, should there be by any chance some other order within this category, when the House will have decided this on principle—I am taking it now on that footing—that we should come back with another Bill to deal with one particular order. We are dealing in this Bill with the principle. We ask the


House to approve the principle. We come forward with every single order that we know of, and then we ask the House to say that the reasonable course is, having taken this precaution, to say that it will approve the Bill with the provision which is now contained in it.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that extension does go beyond the two Ministries which are the only two Ministries his right hon. and learned Friend said had made these Instruments with related schedules?

The Solicitor-General: I agree that it. goes beyond those two Ministries. I quite agree, but, as far as we know—we can examine this further at a later stage—no other order will come within the Bill. We are asking for this Bill as a precautionary measure for the reasons which I have already given. It is merely to prevent a repetition of coming back to the House when the House, ex hypothesi, has agreed.
Now I pass on to another matter, which was particularly stressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. That was with regard to the number of orders which were in operation and how far those orders have now been properly laid. There are five orders which are now in operation, four Board of Trade orders and one Ministry of Supply order. With regard to three of the Board of Trade orders, the schedules which have not been properly laid have been superseded by other Schedules, and so they are outwith, if I may so express it. With regard to the fourth, that was re-laid with S.I. No. 1100 of 1951. That order was debated on 17th July this year. So I trust that that point is covered.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman a question about the three orders? As I understand it, the schedules originally attached to those orders have had other schedules substituted. The basic order remains in force. What then is the difficulty about laying the basic order with the new schedule?

The Solicitor-General: I should have thought that that was unnecessary?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Why?

The Solicitor-General: Because the original order is there, and the original order is available, as it is now in operation, with the new schedule under the new order. I would gladly meet the hon. Gentleman if there were any substance in this, but when he reconsiders this I hope he will see that there is no substance in what he is now saying. The orders are there complete; the schedules are there complete; the whole things as now in operation are, in fact, available, and are properly laid.
The Ministry of Supply Order was Order No. 252 of 1951, and is the one subject to Mr. Speaker's Ruling. That, of course, has been properly laid, so that as far as the operation at the moment is concerned I trust that everything is in order.
I pass on to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris). I regret that he is not here, but he has explained to me that, unfortunately, he has had to leave. He raised a question on the words "to be incurred." I do not want to enter into a great dispute about these words. They were included, and there was a justification, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale). They were inserted largely because the same words occur in the 1944 Act, and we thought it was desirable to follow the 1944 Act as far as possible.
Hon. Members will appreciate that we have done so as closely as we can in this Bill. If there are any really strong objections to these words which can be substantiated in Committee, then I certainly would not suggest that they would not be sympathetically considered. There are the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but, on the other hand, there are the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, and I hope the House will consent to consider that as a matter which can properly be dealt with in Committee.
The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) mentioned the long-standing grievance about the related schedules, and how far they could be laid as part of the order. I am sure he will appreciate that the difficulty there is that, if the related schedules were made as part of an order


and always included as part of the order, we make an extremely bulky document of the order. It would not only make the order an extremely bulky document, but an instrument which would contain a tremendous amount of unnecessary material for those tradesmen and others who require to study the order. That is a sheer waste of money, paper, and so on. It is for that reason that the related schedule principle has been adopted, as much for the convenience of the very persons who use the orders.

Mr. Nicholson: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not see the impropriety of publishing documents which, in the eyes of the public at large, are assumed to be Statutory Instruments which have the force of law, but which are not Statutory Instruments? It is only right that the man in the street should have in his hands the legal authority for acts which may be put upon him, and for the orders he has to obey. I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at it from still another point of view, the fact that it is an invitation—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Gentleman must not make a second speech.

Mr. Nicholson: May I just finish my sentence? I suggest that it is an invitation to Departments to be slack in their delegated legislation.

The Solicitor-General: I really cannot agree with that. I have given the explanation which has been given by more than one hon. Member for adopting this particular method. This method is convenient for tradesmen. It is the method which, in fact, was adopted because it was found convenient for the very people who use these orders.
I now come to Scotland and the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). This Bill does apply to Scotland and I hope that he will not take any great offence at that. The other point he raised

was with regard to the people who had been fined, and so on. Of course, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate that everybody has acted upon the footing throughout that these orders are valid, operative orders. Everything has been done on that footing. Not only that, but as my right hon. and learned Friend indicated, these orders are, in our view, operative orders; in other words, they are completely effective. There is no question of anybody having been improperly fined and still less can there be any question of an indemnity arising on that footing. Therefore, that question does not arise.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: First of all, on the point of Scotland. It was established that it applied not only to the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade, but other Departments were indemnified. Therefore, the Department of the Secretary of State for Scotland is included. In that case why is the Secretary of State not here? Why does his name not appear on the Bill—or at least that of the Lord Advocate, along with that of the Attorney-General?

The Solicitor-General: There are other Departments who may be concerned, but their names do not appear on the list.
I come to the observations made by the hon. and learned Gentleman for Chertsey (Mr. Heald), who spoke with his usual fairness. There was one part of his speech by which I was intrigued. I could not quite understand why he made reference to the original Indemnity Bill of 25 years ago, unless it was to find out why the Leader of the Opposition thought fit to be there on that occasion, when he did not think fit to be here tonight.

Sir H. Williams: He has gone all round the world, but he has not got as far as East Croydon.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Bowden]—for this day.

Orders of the Day — GUARDIANSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF INFANTS (NO. 2) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

12.4 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I commend the Bill to the House as a short but important Bill. It does two things: first, it alters the law of venue in guardianship proceedings; and secondly, it raises the maximum amount that may be ordered by a court of summary jurisdiction under the Guardianship of Infants Act. Hon. Members, in particular the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Redmayne) have for some time been uneasy about the law and have suggested legislation. I hope that they and other hon. Members will find that this Bill meets their points.
The Bill deals with orders made under the Guardianship of Infants Acts, 1886 and 1925. These Acts empower the High Court, the county courts, and the courts of summary jurisdiction to make certain orders—orders for the custody of infants, or access to infants, and for payments of maintenance. Last year the High Court decided in the case of the Sandbach justices that an application made under the Guardianship Acts to a court of summary jurisdiction could only be made—and this was an important decision—to the court in the place in which the respondent lives.
If the mother is living in Plymouth, the father in Newcastle, and the child is with the mother, and she wants legal custody and maintenance, then she must apply in Newcastle. Under the Separation and Maintenance Acts the mother in practice applied in this case to Plymouth, and many courts acted on this analogy and entertained applications under the Guardianship and Maintenance Acts. We believe it to be wrong, and out of keeping with the feeling today, that the law of venue should be restricted in this way.
Accordingly Clause 1 (1), seeks to give the courts of summary jurisdiction the jurisdiction many of them thought they

had until this decision in the High Court. Its effect would be that the mother may apply in Plymouth or in Newcastle. We go even further than that. We say that if the child happens to be living neither with the mother nor the father, but say in Skegness, then the mother can apply there. The same change is proposed for the county courts. In Clause 4 there is a provision for the validation of old orders that turned out in consequence of this decision to have been made without jurisdiction
.
The second important purpose of the Bill is to raise the maximum amount which a court of summary jurisdiction may order. At present the court can award a maximum of 20s. a week under the Guardianship Acts, and 30s. under the Separation and Maintenance Acts, as amended by the Married Women's Maintenance Act, 1949.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Can the Under-Secretary say why we perpetuate the anomaly that an application can only be made to the High Court, where the respondent is residing in Scotland or Northern Ireland—not domiciled, but temporarily resident—so that where an application is made by the mother and the father goes for a time to Scotland or Northern Ireland, he can defeat any action, except the expensive one in the High Court?

Mr. de Freitas: If the hon. Gentleman raises that matter in Committee, we could have an interesting discussion.

Mr. Hale: If the hon. Gentleman tells me why we are doing that, I should know whether it is worth while raising it in Committee.

Mr. de Freitas: I think the point could be pursued with interest in Committee. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has many points he could raise there.
The position with regard to the 20s. and the 30s. is anomalous. Clause I (3), therefore raises the 20s. to 30s. for orders under the Guardianship Acts, and Clause 2 (1), does the same for certain analogous orders. This Bill applies only to England, except for Clause 3, which makes certain consequential changes in the collection of Income Tax, and that Clause, for the sake of uniformity, applies to Scotland.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sure the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the clear exposition he has given of this Bill. So far as we are concerned, we regard it as a wholly admirable Bill, improving and correcting an anomaly with regard to the amount which can be ordered to be paid, and also in reversing the decision in the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
There is one possible abuse in the Bill in that it is possible for an applicant to go to no fewer than three different courts to try and get an order, and I would urge him to give consideration to this point before the Committee stage, in order possibly to avoid prolonged discussion. I imagine it is not the Government's intention that a person unsuccessful in one court should be able to renew his application in a second and third court, without a change of circumstances. If that is not the intention, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that it should be made clear in the Bill. I hope he will be able to draft something to that effect for inclusion in Committee. I think this is particularly desirable because the practice in the High Court is that an applicant can go from one court to another in precisely the same case.

Mr. de Freitas: That is certainly not the intention of the Government. There may possibly be a defence of res judicata, but I will not go into the question now. I will certainly give the undertaking to look at this point.

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Higgs: Looking back over the legislation in this field passed during the last two or three years, it appears that a great deal has been done to clear up anomalies. We had the anomaly that a wife could obtain an order in respect of herself under the Married Woman (Maintenance) Act, because an order under that Act was easily enforced, and she could obtain another order in respect of the children under the Guardianship of Infants Act, because a large sum could be awarded under that Act, although the enforcement of an order under that Act was more difficult. We have not only brought about the equalisation of the amounts which can be awarded under these Acts, but we

have also made their enforcement equally simple.
There is one class of order in favour of children which we encounter from time to time which it is difficult to enforce—namely, the maintenance order which emanates from the divorce court. Although it does not come within the limited scope of this Bill, it is an order for the maintenance of children. To those searching for ways further to improve legislation in this field, I commend the possibility of improving enforcement orders made in the High Court, as part of divorce proceedings, in cases where the amounts are similar to those awarded by justices making orders of this kind, by making these orders enforceable by justices. I believe that would greatly help women in humble circumstances who at present find difficulty in extracting from unwilling ex-husbands the maintenance to which they are entitled. Hon. Members who have come up against this matter will bear me out that there is considerable scope for improvement there.

12.15 a.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I do not want to detain the House for more than a moment, but there are some important matters in the Bill relating to women which cannot be discussed on the Committee stage. We all welcome the Bill as far as it goes, in so far as it increases the amounts and widens the jurisdiction of the courts, but I think that many of us wish that the Government had introduced a more comprehensive Measure. I think we all realise that many women are placed in extremely difficult circumstances because they may not be able to obtain the money which is their right for themselves or their children, although they may have obtained an order in court.
We may be able to discuss the matter of Scotland in Committee. Here again, considerable hardship is caused because a number of men have discovered a loophole in the law. There is a wider law in Scotland, but there is no provision in the Bill for extending it to England and Wales, whereby a man who falls into arrears in payment of the maintenance order may have it stopped from his earnings. This is a matter on which many organisations representing women feel strongly. Where a man has a proper


obligation to pay for the maintenance of children covered by this Bill, and does not meet it, much stronger action ought to be taken than can be taken under the present law.
There is another matter, that of the husband who has moved to another district where the wife cannot trace him, although it is known that a Government Department has information which would enable her to trace him but will not disclose it. Where a woman has no means of tracing her husband but knows that a Government Department could find him if it wished to do so, the freedom of the individual not being tampered with by a Government Department ought to be weighed against the obligation of a man towards his children. It seems to me that at the moment it is always weighted against the obligation towards the children and the family.
I mention these points because many of us would have wished the Government to have introduced a more comprehensive Measure than they have tonight.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Bell: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), about enforcement orders, but I entirely disagree with her on her last point. I hope the House will yield to no special argument in derogation of the obligation to secrecy of Government Departments. There is always a strong and particular case to be made for special claims, but one must always remember the general question of principle. Though I support the hon. Lady in one matter, I should be against her in the other; but as we are discussing something which is not in the Bill, I do not think we should quarrel too much about it.
Like my hon. Friends, I welcome the provision which increases the amount which may be claimed by an applicant, but I am not at all happy about some of the provisions. Often Parliament legislates in these matters from the point of view of the injured wife, but one also has to consider the possibility of the injured husband. I have in mind the case

where a wife might desert her husband and go to a remote part of the Kingdom where she would bring proceedings for the custody of the child in a court there. The child may be with the husband in the original matrimonial home in the vicinity of which witnesses who might have supported the husband's case may be living.
I am not at all happy about the proposal in the Bill which gives the wife three possible choices, particularly the most convenient one for herself, and makes it difficult for the husband to get justice. This matter must be considered from the point of view of both sides, particularly as the law has a duty to the husband as well as to the wife. The aim in considering the machinery of justice is how a right decision is most likely to be reached by the courts. I hope we shall not entirely lose sight of that principle when we consider this Bill in Committee.
Finally, a word on the point raised from this side of the House about the serious risk of cumulative proceedings. I shall have to refresh my memory on this, but my strong impression is that under the Guardianship of Infants Acts, 1886 and 1925, one can go to court as often as one likes. The principle laid down in these Acts is that the welfare of the child is the pre-eminent consideration, but one can come back and make a new application in the same court, let alone in a different one. Therefore, in Committee we may find it rather difficult—though I hope the attempt will be made—to limit" the number of applications to the same court or to a different one, either from the point of view of time or else by requiring a change of circumstances to be decided on a preliminary hearing or something of that kind. One really must protect the respondent against oppressive use of the rather wide powers that this Bill affords the wife.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Bowden]—for this day.

Orders of the Day — ACCESS TO HOUSE OF COMMONS (COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE)

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Paget: I beg to move,
That the complaint [18th July] of the hon. Member for Bolton, West, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I should like to make it quite clear that this Motion does not say anything at all as to whether the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis) is well or ill founded. It merely asserts that his complaint did raise a matter of Privilege and that matter of Privilege having been raised by the hon. Member it is his right that this House should adjudicate on it, and that the matter should be reported upon by the Committee of Privileges.
At the commencement of this Session, as of all Sessions, this House ordered that direction should be given to the Commissioner of Police that
…during the Session of Parliament the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House…
It should be made clear that the privilege of unobstructed access to Parliament does not arise from that Order. The Order arises from the privilege, and it is an ancient privilege of this House, that we should be unobstructed in our passage here.
On 3rd July my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West, rightly or wrongly alleged that he was so obstructed on his way to the House. When he was, as he alleged, obstructed he told the policeman—and I think this rather important—that he would report the matter to the House of Commons. On arriving here on that day he reported it to Mr. Speaker and he further telephoned to the police station concerned and informed that police station that the matter had been reported to Mr. Speaker.
At that time no question of prosecution had arisen. The hon. Member had not been asked to produce his licence or insurance certificate, or anything of that sort. Some days later, he received a pink slip of paper saying that a prosecution was being considered. I do not think that any objection can be taken to that. The Road Traffic Act provides

that notice of a possible prosecution must be given within a stated time, and this slip is the formal notice.
On the 16th, the hon. Member put down a Motion. That Motion was in these terms:
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the obstruction by the Police of Mr. John Lewis, the Member for Bolton, West, when on his way to this House on 3rd July, 1951, and to report thereon to the House.
Of course, putting down a Motion is one of the two ways by which the attention of the House may be brought to a matter of Privilege. One can make a complaint, and that is in effect charging somebody with a breach of Privilege; or one can raise the general matter, without charging an individual, by means of a Motion. It was the latter method which was here selected.
On the following day, that is the 17th July—and that, of course, would be after the Motion put down had been reported in the newspapers—an application was made by the police for summonses. On the 18th July, those summonses were served. There were three of them. The first summons was for driving without due consideration. That, in this case, amounted to pulling out of a queue of traffic. The second summons was for obstructing a constable on traffic duty; and the third one was for failing to obey a traffic signal—a signal to stop.
In my submission, those various summonses express the consequence of the hon. Member's acts if his claim of Privilege were ill-founded. If I, for instance, tried to enter Palace Yard, and a policeman tried to stop me and I pushed past him, either I would have been right because of my Privilege, or I would have committed the offence of pushing, or obstructing, the policeman in the course of his duties. These summonses, as I understand, simply express the legal consequences of the actions of the hon. Member, if he was wrong. Thus the question of Privilege is directly raised. By these summonses, the court is asked to adjudicate as to whether the actions of the hon. Member on this occasion were, or were not, a proper assertion of Privilege.
The Sessional Order is vague. Some hon. Members take the view that it ought to be defined, and that one ought to know just where it applies. If that be


so, the Committee of Privileges is the body to advise this House as to how it ought to act. Other hon. Members take the view that it is better left vague, and not too closely defined; but that is a view which can only be held if one takes the further view that each case must be considered on its merits. Again, the Committee of Privileges is the correct body so to consider each case.
The complaint here is that after the police had been notified, and a Motion put down that this House was taking notice of the matter, they applied for a summons, and, thereby, they said—

Mr. S. O. Davies: On a point of order. Am I correct in assuming, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that so far as ordinary folks are concerned this case is sub judice at this moment? If so, is it right and proper for us, as hon. Members of this House, although not all connected with the legal profession to discuss this matter here tonight?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): This is a question of Parliamentary Privilege; the question of court proceedings being sub judice does not arise.

Mr. Paget: The case hue is that those who applied for the summons sought to set in motion an inferior court upon a matter of Privilege, and one of which Parliament was fully seized. The important thing here—the very thing which the magistrate was being asked to adjudicate upon—was an assertion, rightly or wrongly, of Privilege. Erskine May, on page 172, says this:
The House of Commons claims that its admitted right to adjudicate on breaches of privileges implies in theory the right to determine the existence and the extent of the privileges themselves. It has never expressly abandoned its claim to treat as a breach of privilege the institution of proceedings for the purpose of bringing its privileges into discussion or decision before any court or tribunal elsewhere than in Parliament. In other words, it claims to be the exclusive and absolute judge of its own privileges, and that its judgments are not examinable by any other court, or subject to appeal.
The question with which the House is now concerned brings attention to the famous case of Mr. Stockdale, who brought various libel actions against Mr. Hansard. Hansard's defence was that he published by order of Parliament, and that his act in publication was the exercise of a Privilege of Parliament.
The man who issued the writs on Stockdale's behalf, his solicitor, was a man named Howard; and Howard was imprisoned by the order of this House for having issued those writs. That was setting in motion another court—in that case, the High Court—to adjudicate upon a matter which was claimed to be the exercise of Privilege. Mr. Stockdale, in. one of these actions, obtained damages, and the sheriffs of Middlesex levied on Hansard for those damages.
For that act, they were imprisoned by this House. That indicates the unfortunate circumstances which are apt to arise where the jurisdiction of this House and of the courts on Privilege may come into conflict with the courts. It may be said—and I have heard it said in argument—that Stockdale was a civil action and that this is a criminal question. I think we should remember that the privileges of this House originate in the protection which hon. Members required from the Executive and that, if it is a breach of Privilege for the ordinary man to bring before the courts an act which is claimed as Privilege, it is certainly equally a breach of Privilege for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as a member of the Executive, to do that same thing.
If it be a breach of Privilege to allege that an action claimed as a Privilege of this House is a civil wrong, it is all the more a breach of Privilege to allege that it be a crime. Of course, this does not for one moment give any general claim to criminal immunity, nor can it be suggested—as, I think, Mr. Speaker did to some degree suggest—that any hon. Member who may be summoned, can either obstruct or delay these proceedings by putting a Motion upon the Order Paper about it. The only circumstances in which this House claims the prior right to decide is where the very action which is alleged to be a crime is claimed as a Privilege. That is the only circumstance in which this conflict arises.
This matter was considered very directly by this House quite recently in the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who then sat for Norwood. I will quote from the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons on 29th June, 1938. It said:
Privilege.—Complaint made to the House by Mr. Sandys, Member for the Norwood


Division of Lambeth, of an order by a military Court of Inquiry summoning him to appear in uniform before that Court To-morrow morning for the purpose of giving evidence."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1938; Vol. 337, c. 2132.]
That was immediately referred, on the Motion of the Prime Minister, to the Committee of Privileges and the Committee of Privileges found that that was a breach of Privilege. It said:
…. that the House, having taken note of the statement of the hon. Member for Norwood on the 27th instant, had in effect recognised that important issues were involved and was about to set up special machinery to investigate those circumstances. Before, however, the Select Committee had actually set up, the hon. Member for Norwood, being a Territorial Officer. received a summons to appear before a military Court of Inquiry …
That summons was held to be a breach of Privilege. It seems to me that the two cases have a very close resemblance.
I do feel that we ought also to have regard to the position of the magistrate here in being asked to adjudicate upon a matter of Privilege. He is put in an unfair position, because this House is the judge of Privilege, but, none the less, Privilege is part of the law of the land, and magistrates, therefore, and judges have to adjudicate upon Privilege if it arises before them in cases. But they do so at their peril, and if they are wrong in their adjudication then they are liable to penalties from this House.
Two learned judges, Mr. Justice Pemberton and Mr. Justice Jones, were, in fact, imprisoned by this House for refusing to or rule that a defence of Privilege which had been raised in the case of Jay and Topham was well founded; and the Sheriffs of Middlesex also, as officers of the court, were imprisoned in another case.
That does seem to put the learned magistrate in an utterly unfair position. We all wish to avoid any conflict between this House and the courts. We only do that if we do our job, deal with questions of Privilege as they arise, and so provide the magistrates with guidance as to whether a claim to Privilege is or is not well founded. I do submit that this matter quite clearly ought to be referred to the Committee.
I would ask hon. Members to put aside any adverse opinions which they may have borne as to the conduct of the hon. Member in this case. I say that for two

reasons. First, because such opinions are irrelevant. A number of protagonists in many of our great constitutional issues have not been particularly attractive.
But there is a little more to it than that, because in this case there has been something of a whispering campaign which most of us have heard, and I believe that one of the things that the Committee of Privileges should apply its mind to is where that whispering campaign originated. It has been a rather unhappy thing, and we ought to see to it, because that sort of thing ought not to happen.
I will conclude by saying that here we have the case of an hon. Member who has asserted Privilege and asked for the justice of Parliament. It is his right that Parliament should consider and judge. It is the right, in my submission, of any hon. Member, and it is a right that we should grant.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to second the Motion.
I hope to do so very shortly because the House is not called upon tonight to decide any of the issues which are raised in the Motion, except the one issue as to whether there is or is not a proper case to inquire into—a proper case for the House to consider and a proper case to have a report upon from the Committee of Privileges so that we may consider it, with all the evidence having already been sifted in the right context.
I would say at once that nothing could do greater harm to the dignity, the prestige, and the Privileges of this House than our claiming that Members are in any way above the law and not amenable to the courts in the ordinary way, as is every other citizen. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has already said, in the facts alleged in this case there is no evidence whatever of any breach of the law, except such breach as would in any case he necessary if there were indeed the Privilege claimed, and if somebody had obstructed the hon. Member in the exercise of that Privilege.
Therefore, the whole question which has arisen in this matter is the simple question—which I will not say one word to prejudge in any way—of whether the hon. Member was obstructing the policeman in the course of the policeman's duty,


or whether the policeman was obstructing the hon. Member in the exercise of a privilege which he had. That question cannot be determined without some examination of the facts, some examination of what is the basis of the privilege claimed, and some examination of the facts which followed upon the event.
I can conceive—and I hope it is no disrespect to anybody to say so—no valid reason at all for saying that this is not a proper matter to inquire into. We could only say that this was not a proper matter to inquire into if we were to do what Erskine May says the House of Commons has never yet done, namely, to reside in some other tribunal—in this case to an inferior court—the determination and adjudication of the question of what is a Parliamentary Privilege, what is its extent, and what are the privileges of the House of Commons. It is quite true that ever since Stockdale v. Hansard—and, indeed, in that very case—both the courts outside and the House of Commons have done everything that lay in their power to avoid an unseemly contest of jurisdiction between them; a number of rules were laid down, and both authorities have done their best to observe them.
If on these facts we were to say that there is nothing here with which the House of Commons need concern itself, then we should be abandoning, for the first time, and making it impossible for us ever again to claim, any right whatever to be the judge of our own Privileges. Whatever may be the result of the inquiry now to be held, whether it justifies the hon. Member in what he did or whether it comes to the conclusion in the end that what he claimed went beyond any privilege that could justifiably be claimed, or would be supported by this House, I think that the House would be abandoning one of the most ancient of its rights if it were to come to the conclusion that there was nothing here with which it need concern itself.

12.49 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I must not he taken as accepting all the statements made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) as being statements of fact in this matter. Quite clearly, he has, I will not say been listening to whispered rumours, been told

certain things on which he has based his speech. I think the House will agree with me in this: that if there is one thing we should attempt to avoid it is anything that might lead to conflict between this House and any court of law in the country, and that it would be very unfortunate if we separated for the Recess without having had an opportunity of considering the position that has arisen with regard to this matter.
I would therefore suggest to the House that it will not be expressing any view at all on the facts as they may finally emerge if they accept the Motion that has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Paget) and seconded by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I think this is a matter which should receive the calm consideration of the House and that hon. and right hon. Members should have before them, when considering it, a report which gives, as far as it is possible to elucidate them, all the facts that should be known to the House when it wants to form a judgment.
My hon. and learned Friend said that because this was a matter of privilege, it must be adjudicated upon by the Committee of Privileges. That is not so. It is, of course, perfectly competent for the House tonight, if it so decided, to proceed to consider this matter, or even at this stage to declare there had been a breach of Privilege or there had not been a breach of Privilege. But I venture to say that in a matter of this importance, that would be a very injudicious step to take, no matter which way the House might wish to reach a decision tonight.
Of course, if we are to settle this before the House rises for the Recess, it will mean that the Committee of Privileges will have to meet comparatively early. I hope that they will be able to meet tomorrow—what is now today—and that the hon. Member for Bolton. West (Mr. j. Lewis) will find it convenient to be in attendance upon them. The Committee will, of course, have to decide whether they wish to have any other witnesses or whether they wish to get advice as to the history of this matter, which is a somewhat complicated one, for my hon. and learned Friend, with the ingenuousness which always characterises him, left off his quotation from Erskine May at the


most interesting point. If he had read the next paragraph.…

Mr. Henry Strauss: The next two.

Mr. Ede: I do not want to waste the time of the House by quoting too much, and I think the next paragraph would have been sufficient to show there have been two points of view on this matter. It says:
On the other hand, the courts regard the privileges of Parliament as part of the law of the land of which they are bound to take judicial notice. They consider it their duty to decide any question of privilege arising directly or indirectly in a case which falls within their jurisdiction, and to decide it according to their own interpretation of the law.

Mr. Paget: I did say that. I quoted the paragraph which was the view of this House, and then I went on, but I did not read it, although I stated almost exactly the same thing.

Mr. Ede: I am bound to say it seemed to me not to have quite the same force as obiter dicta from my hon. and learned Friend as when being quoted from Erskine May, which is generally supposed to settle all arguments, even with more exalted people than the Home Secretary.
I want to submit to the House that I think we should be ill-advised this evening to continue the argument, if we are willing to submit the matter to the Committee of Privileges. One of the defects—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) who has served on the Committee for many years will agree —is that sometimes in the deliberations of the Committee we are a bit hampered by random sayings of previous Members of the House who, on occasions like this, have expressed their views. Since I have been Chairman of the Committee of Privileges we have had the views of Mr. Disraeli submitted to us, and the views of Mr. Gladstone, quite obviously directed to some rather small point that had arisen at the time.
I would suggest to the House this evening that if we continue this discussion I am not sure we shall help the Committee in their deliberations; indeed, we may quite possibly be misleading a future House when a Member may quote a random saying of a Member who may

become a quite distinguished parliamentarian, and whose earlier observations may well be quoted with all the weight that attaches to his future eminence.
I am not, therefore, to be taken as accepting necessarily all the statements that have been made by the mover and seconder of the Motion as representing the unchallenged position on Privilege in cases such as this. I think it would be advisable—and I commend this to the House—if we referred this matter to the Committee of Privileges so that all the implications of the incident as outlined by my hon. and learned Friend can be investigated and a report submitted to the House, I hope in time for hon. Members to have an informed discussion if they so wish it before the House rises for the Summer Recess so that the views of the House may be known well before the time when the summonses are returnable.

12.59 a.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I am sorry not to be able. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite are not willing to listen, my speech will be a good deal longer than would otherwise be necessary. I am sorry that I cannot at once accede to the request made by the right hon. Gentleman. It would have been possible if he had got up a little later, well knowing that I wished to put another point of view. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite had better get used to the idea that debate in this House is still permitted. If they wish to delay proceedings they can do so. I propose to be reasonably brief if they allow me, and to make a speech which will not be in opposition to the Home Secretary's proposal.

Mr. Ede: May I be allowed to say that I owe the hon. and learned Gentleman an apology, because he did indicate to me last night that he wished to put a certain point of view? I discussed the matter at length with him. But I must say that, as sometimes happens in this House, the course a debate takes may make it rather difficult to carry on with the line one anticipated might have been taken. I hope the House will give the hon. and learned Gentleman an attentive hearing, because —and I want to make this clear—he approached me on the matter and I feel in some way that I might have let him down.

Mr. Strauss: I need hardly say that I am making no accusations of any sort against the right hon. Gentleman. In fact, I am going to support the main proposal he has made—that this matter should go to the Committee of Privileges.
The only need for saying something further arises because of some things said on the previous occasion and on this by the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion. It is a need which, however misguided hon. Members may think that I am, I. assure the House I emphatically believe in. As they put forward many doctrines which I think are unsound and dangerous, it is not in the interests of the House that no other point of view should be put forward promptly in the House.
The questions raised in the complaint of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis) can be conveniently divided into two parts. The first is that which is connected with his complaint of the interpretation by the police of the Sessional Order or his allegation that it was disregarded. Let me say at once that I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who moved the Motion, that it is eminently right that this matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. When the question was raised in 1834, Mr. Speaker said this:
As to any particular case in which this Order has been infringed, whether it be in the case of hon. Members who have been obstructed by parties not knowing them, or by accident, that is matter of inquiry for the House. Hon. Members do right in bringing their complaint here.
I need hardly say that in everything I say I am making no assumption whatever against the hon. Member for Bolton, West. It is equally clear that I am making no assumption whatever against the police, and I am not expressing, needless to say, any doubt regarding the Committee of Privileges to whom it is proposed to refer this matter. I think that a difficulty has been introduced—on which I certainly wish to give my opinion to the House, and I know that it is shared by a number of hon. Members on both sides—by the hon. Member's complaint of the service of summonses in criminal proceedings as a breach of Privilege, because on the authorities I am convinced that the House could decide straight away that no privilege has been thereby infringed.
I think it is particularly important to correct certain statements that were made by the hon. and learned Member who moved the Motion and by the hon. Member who seconded. On the last occasion, perhaps, they were not so well prepared, but the statements were repeated to some extent today. Mention was made of a police court compared with this House as being an inferior court. That expression in that connection involves a misconception. One talks, rightly, of an inferior court in contrast with a superior court when a matter can come before the superior court from the lower court on appeal, and the inferior court may be said to be subject to the superior court. But there is no such subordination of the criminal courts of this country to this House, nor does any good democrat desire that there should be. It is clear that we claim no privilege to interfere with the administration of criminal justice.
Let me take one of the best known of Parliamentary privileges, the privilege of freedom from arrest. After a lengthy history the present position is clearly laid down in Erskine May in these words:
The privilege of freedom from arrest is limited to civil causes, and has not been allowed to interfere with the administration of criminal justice or emergency legislation.
It would be strange if there were no freedom from arrest on criminal charges, but it could be claimed that the service of a summons was a breach of Privilege. Since 1704 it has been clear that neither House claims any power to create new privileges. Both the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Motion mentioned the danger of conflict between this House and the courts. There is such a danger, but, happily, we have been free from it for more than 100 years. The reason is given in Erskine May and other leading works.
Let me mention what the conflict is. This is what Erskine May says:
At first sight there seemed to be a complete antimony or contradiction in law between two equally respectable principles, urged with conviction and occasionally with heat by two constitutional authorities, each supreme in its own sphere, and neither of which could compel the submission of the other. On the one hand, the House of Lords or the House of Commons, while admitting that it could not create a new privilege, claimed to be the sole and exclusive judge of its own privilege. On the other hand, the courts maintained that privilege was part of the law of the land, and


that they were bound to decide questions coming before them in any case within their jurisdiction, even if privilege were involved. No formal reconciliation of these conflicting doctrines is possible, but in the course of applying them to a series of cases a considerable measure of agreement has been reached.
Erskine May goes on to point out how the doctrines have been reconciled and the difficulties avoided:
The solution gradually marked out by the courts is to insist on their right in principle to decide all questions of privilege arising in litigation before them, with certain large exceptions in favour of parliamentary jurisdiction. Two of these, which are supported by a great weight of authority, are the exclusive jurisdiction of each House over its own internal proceedings, and the right of either House to commit and punish for contempt. While it cannot he claimed that either House has formally acquiesced in this assumption of jurisdiction by the courts, the absence of any conflict for over a century may indicate a certain measure of tacit acceptance.
I could quote a great deal more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear,"] I think there are many Members on both sides of the House who realise that this is a serious matter. Nevertheless, I am not going to quote a great deal more. I will only speak of the method by which the House has avoided conflict. In the passage immediately following that which the Home Secretary quoted hon. Members will find that four principles are set out, which are recognised as largely avoiding the danger of conflict and, as long as we observe them, we will avoid conflict.
One thing that is absolutely clear is that we must not interfere with the course of criminal justice and we should not wish to claim to interfere with, or even to delay, the course of criminal justice. I commend to hon. Members a study of the leading cases—Stockdale v. Hansard and Bradlaugh v. Gossett. Such interference would produce fantastic results. It was claimed that the service of summonses in criminal proceedings was a breach of Privilege.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), on an earlier occasion, talked about the exclusive right of this House to determine Privilege. Any consultation of the legal authorities would show him that there is no such exclusive right in this case. In this case, if the matter went before the court and any defence based on Privilege were raised before it, the court would have to determine it. If it went to a higher court that higher court would have to determine it. The one party that could not

possibly determine it from the point of view of the courts would be this House.

Mr. S. Silverman: I did not intend to convey, and I do not think my words did convey—if they did I would alter them—any claim that the courts can or ought to be prevented from considering any relevant fact which they had to consider to determine the issue before them. Undoubtedly, Privilege is part of the law of the land and in so far as it arises before the court that court must consider and determine it. But what I did say, and I repeat, is that with our authority Erskine May and the decided cases we have decided to make it perfectly clear that this House has never parted with the claim to be the only tribunal in the end which can determine what are our privileges and what are their limits and I am surprised that any hon. Member of this House should at this time abandon that.

Mr. Strauss: I am also surprised that any hon. Member, if he has examined this matter, should completely abandon half Erskine May. Let him study what is said about Stockdale v. Hansard and other leading cases. The words of the hon. Member that I had in mind were:
Has it not always been held that the only tribunal which can determine the extent of a Parliamentary Privilege, where there is one, and, if there is one, what are the limits of it, is the House of Commons itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1951; Vol. 490, c. 1258.]
There is no doctrine which has been so completely overthrown. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] An hon. Member says that that is nonsense, but I will tell the House what the four principles are as set out in Erskine May. I quote from page 173:
In practice, however, there is much more agreement on the nature and principles of privilege than the deadlock on the question of jurisdiction would lead one to expect.
Then follow these four principles which are now generally accepted:
(1) It seems to be recognised that, for the purpose of adjudicating on questions of privilege, neither House is by itself entitled to claim the supremacy over the ordinary courts of justice which was enjoyed by the undivided High Court of Parliament. The supremacy of Parliament, consisting of the King and the two Houses, is a legislative supremacy which has nothing to do with the privilege jurisdiction of either House acting singly.
(2) It is admitted by both Houses that, since neither House can by itself add to the law, neither House can by its own declaration create a new privilege. This implies that privilege is objective and its extent ascertainable,


and reinforces the doctrine that it is known by the courts.
On the other hand the courts admit.
(3) That the control of each House over its internal proceedings is absolute and cannot be interfered with by the courts.
(4) That committal for contempt by either House is in practice within its exclusive juridiction, since the facts constituting the alleged contempt need not be stated on the warrant of committal.

Mr. Paget: How do the courts ascertain the privilege without reference to the resolutions of this House?

Mr. Strauss: I would beg the hon. and learned Member to study the decisions of the courts. If he studies Burdett v. Abbott and Mr. Justice Stephen's judgment in the case of Bradlaugh and Gossett and the judgment of Lord Denman in Stockdale v. Hansard he will have a full reply to that question.
That is the general case against considering service of a summons in a criminal case as a breach of Privilege. But I would beg the House to notice this further matter which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned—though I think he omitted one important point. Where a person is prosecuted for various road offences—exceeding the maximum speed at which a motor vehicle may be driven, or reckless or dangerous driving, or careless driving—it is a condition precedent to a prosecution that one of three things must be done: he must be warned at the time, which obviously may be sometimes impossible, or the summons must be served within 14 days, or within the said 14 days a notice not of a possible prosecution, but of the intended prosecution, must be served. If the hon. and learned Member were right in saying that service of a summons constituted a breach of Privilege, or could have constituted a prima facie breach of Privilege in this case, the same would apply to service of a notice of intended prosecution, and it would follow that a Member of Parliament could be made completely immune from prosecution for such offences.

Mr. Paget: The notice was here served in accordance with the statutory requirements.

Mr. Strauss: What I said was that every argument that a summons was a breach of Privilege applies equally to a notice of intended prosecution. That is my contention, and it is a serious contention. I

say that reference of the complaint, apart from the question of the summons, to the Committee of Privileges, is obviously right. Since we obviously have confidence in that Committee, I agree, also, with the Home Secretary, that nothing should be excluded from the consideration of that Committee.

Mr. John Lewis: I think that I ought to make it clear that my only complaint was one that the summonses were served after, in fact, the Motion was put down. I was advised by Mr. Speaker that it was too late to raise the original issue as a matter of Privilege, and my sole complaint is that, after the Motion had been put down, the summonses were issued.

Mr. Strauss: I do not criticise the hon. Member in any form; what I was criticising was hon. Members saying that there was a breach of Privilege. It is equally open to me to say that I believe that such a claim to Privilege is unsound, contrary to precedent, and injurious to the reputation of this House.
I believe that it is contrary to the interests of this House that we should appear to make the novel claim that an hon. Member of this House is in any way immune from the ordinary processes of criminal justice. My only complaint, if it be a complaint, of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton is that he gave a great many facts, otherwise unknown to us, regarding the summonses, while the hon. Member for Nelson and Collie said that the summonses arose directly out of the matters claimed to be matters of Privilege. They may be right, or they may be wrong; none of us knows.
The matter has not been tried and, in those circumstances, I submit that it is wrong and dangerous in principle to say that any service of a summons was a breach of the Privileges of this House. Mr. Speaker's Ruling was a right one, but because there is something which ought to go to the Committee of Privileges, I agree with the suggestion of the Home Secretary to refer the whole complaint to the Committee.

1.23 a.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am not moved by tributes paid to my profession, but I should like to make one brief observation which arises from what happened when this matter was mentioned before and discussed in the


House. We are told that my hon. Friend, the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis) whether right in his intention or not, at once sought the advice of the Chair. Now, I have always thought that the proper course when in any difficulty about the privileges of this House, was for an hon. Member to do just that. We were told by Mr. Speaker that he had not been able to give any advice to my hon. Friend, and had told him that the only course open to him was to put the matter down for the Select Committee.
That, I submit, is a completely new Ruling, because Erskine May makes it quite clear that one of the duties of Mr. Speaker is to give a Ruling when hon. Members are in any difficulty, especially on the issue of Privilege, in this House. If advice is not to be given from some quarter, then hon. Members may, time after time, be worried by things which are purely frivolous while they are helpless to get advice and guidance. This is what Erskine May says, on page 235:
The opinion of the Speaker cannot be sought in the House about any matter arising or likely to arise in a committee The Speaker is always ready to advise Members of all parties who consult him privately, whether upon any action which they propose to take in the House, or upon any questions of order which are likely to arise in its proceedings.
What we are concerned with is that no advice was given, and what was said from the Chair. The matter was about to drift until this unfortunate matter arose, a position, which I suspect, most hon. Members on both sides regret. The matter, with respect, was added to by an unfortunate statement from the Chair, which was premeditated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am discussing a substantive Motion, under which a Select Committee will have to investigate all the circumstances, including what action was taken by the Chair. What I am asking is that the Committee of Privileges should consider what is the duty of a right hon. or hon. Member who is in difficulty and whether it is his duty to seek the advice of the Chair and, if not, then whose advice he shall take on a matter.

Captain Crookshank: On a point of order. I am not concerned with the main matter at all, but it seems that from what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale) is saying that he is directing specific criticism against the action of Mr. Speaker and

what he said. Is it in order to do that during a debate on another subject? May I ask whether, if he wants to make a criticism of Mr. Speaker, he can only do that on a Motion against Mr. Speaker himself? I submit it is not in order to discuss what Mr. Speaker said.

Mr. George Wigg: Further to that point of order. Are we not guided by the principle established by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler)? On a recent occasion in this House, he called into question the impartiality of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Clearly, the action of Mr. Speaker cannot be reflected upon on this Motion, which deals with an entirely different matter. I did, however, understand that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), in whatever form he put the matter, is asking that the Committee should, if it so decided, give advice to right hon. and hon. Members as to the course they should take. I do not think that necessarily means that the hon. Member is reflecting on Mr. Speaker. In any event he must certainly not do so.

Mr. Hale: I am seeking guidance and the Committee of Privileges should give that guidance, of which we are in very real need. I will conclude by quoting the words I was about to quote when I was interrupted. Mr. Speaker said:
Privilege does not protect hon. Members from the service of summonses, and an hon. Member cannot prevent the police from prosecuting him for an alleged motoring offence by putting a notice of Motion on the Order Paper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1951; Vol. 490, c. 1258.]
No one would dissent from that, but what would be the position, having sought the guidance and advice of the Chair, if the hon. Member for Bolton, West, were to go to a court and try to raise a question of Privilege after that. It was an unfortunate observation, because—

Mr. Nally: On a point of order. We really must have this point clear. In Erskine May it is clearly laid down that one of the things Mr. Speaker is bound to do is to give advice to right hon. and hon. Members who seek his counsel. But there is no obligation whatsoever laid down in Erskine May, or anywhere else, that Mr. Speaker cannot please himself as to the nature of the advice he


gives. In this particular case, he advised the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis) as to what he could do if he intended to pursue the matter. He cast no doubt upon the merits of the position. I am submitting that there is no obligation whatever in Erskine May which binds Mr. Speaker to advise any hon. Member as to what exactly are his rights.

The Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now arguing the merits of another matter—Mr. Speaker's action. He is not entitled to do that.

Mr. Nally: In my submission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I may use the phraseology we have been entertained with for a considerable time tonight, reflections are being made, either direct or implied, that Mr. Speaker did not do his duty in this case, and that is completely out of order.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Further to that point of order. As I understood it, at the moment the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) intervened the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was quoting an observation made by Mr. Speaker, and adding the comment that that was an unfortunate observation. The point on which I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is whether it is in order for an hon. Member to make a statement of that sort, other than on a Motion directly criticising Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has stated the correct position.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is to say that such an observation is out of order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. That is so.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged.

Mr. Hale: I will not argue the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member may not"] Surely, after two long points of order, one of them raised by a Member on a back bench who told me not to speak and then made a longer speech than I have made, I am entitled to point out that I will not argue the matter, and that I do not propose to follow the point.
I have made my point. I am asking that the Committee of Privileges should consider this matter and also consider what is the appropriate procedure for an

hon. Member to take in such a matter as this, so that we may know.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the complaint [18th July] of the hon. Member for Bolton, West, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Orders of the Day — CHAIRMAN OF KITCHEN COMMITTEE (PRESS CORRESPONDENT'S LETTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Second Special Report from the Select Committee on Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) he now considered.—[Mr. Coldrick.]

1.32 a.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I desire to point out that it is far too late at night for this matter. It is not a suitable time for it. It is not a very important Report, and I oppose this Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Report considered accordingly.

1.33 a.m.

Mr. Coldrick: I beg to move,
That the said Report be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I sincerely hoped that there would be no opposition to this Motion, in view of the fact that it comes from a Committee that has taken an unanimous decision. But having regard to the fact that apparently there will be opposition to it, I think it essential that I should make a statement on the matter.
Let me say, in the first place, that when I was coming into the House on 9th July I was approached by a number of people who apparently knew me but whom I did not know, and who asked me if I had read the attack made that day in the "Daily Express" on me. I had not read it. I immediately went to the room of the Manager of the Refreshment Department and secured a copy of the "Daily Express," and read the letter that had been written by Mr. Barkley. The letter is set out in the Report, and, therefore, hon. Members will be fully familiar with it.
I immediately inquired whether the alleged facts as stated in the letter were true, and I was informed that, so far from their being true with regard to the allocation of cigarettes, the real position


was as set out very clearly in the Report. Consequently, I immediately wrote to the "Daily Express" indicating that the statement was absurd, stupid and untrue. That was written on 9th July. On 11th July the Kitchen Committee met and I was then informed that if I did not raise the matter some other hon. Member would. The letter written by Mr. Barkley was reported to the Kitchen Committee. The Committee decided that the facts should be inquired into and submitted at its next meeting.
In the meantime, on 12th July, my letter appeared in the "Daily Express," and that letter had obviously been shown to Mr. Barkley, for he added a rejoinder. The rejoinder—which I will not weary the House with reading—was to the effect that what he had stated previously was true, and that the only cigarettes that were not Co-operative cigarettes consisted of a cigarette that I as Co-op. chairman had given him out of a non-Co-op. packet. Subsequently the Report was drafted and submitted to the Kitchen Committee on 18th July, and the Committee unanimously adopted that Report, which is now before the House.
I will not detain the House for long on the facts. In the first place, the decision to have Co-operative cigarettes on sale in this House was apparently taken in November, 1945—exactly five years before I was associated in any way whatever with the Kitchen Committee. Speaking in the presence of members of the Kitchen Committee, I can most solemnly state that on no occasion during the whole of the period that I have been Chairman has the question of Cooperative supplies in general or Co-operative cigarettes in particular been raised, either by myself or by any other Member of the Committee. Therefore, the charge is fundamentally and basically untrue.
Apart from that, I have never raised with anyone the question of cigarettes supplies in this House, except on one occasion when an hon. Member put a Question on the Order Paper asking me specifically if it was possible to get some of the more popular brands in the House. I raised that matter with the Manager, and asked him if he would make inquiries. I think everybody knew what were the popular brands referred to.
In view of the fact that I have the honour to represent part of a city which

is the headquarters of one of the biggest tobacco firms in the country, I suppose any malevolent person could accuse me of using my influence to further my own interests by trying to get popular cigarettes from Bristol for the House. However, I merely did that in the course of my duty, following that Question. Apart from that, this question of Co-operative cigarettes has never been raised.
Why the allegation is made, I frankly do not understand. Hon. Members should remember that this House has provided unique facilities for the Press who are allowed to attend here. The House has graciously consented to provide the Press with a dining-room of their own, with a bar and a tea room—

Mr. Harold Davies: Subsidised meals.

Mr. Coldrick: I do not want to introduce any feeling in this Chamber. I merely state exactly the position.
We provided those facilities. I was about to indicate, as dispassionately as I could, that the Press Gallery has a committee of its own dealing with its own amenities, and that they can make the appropriate representations to the authorities of the House if they feel any grievance. In addition to that, they have a sub-committee which deals with the catering amenities, and it is a well-established practice that if they have any grievance whatsoever they are entitled to make direct representations to the Kitchen Committee in order that such grievance may be considered, together with any suggestions they may care to offer.
I must just say this in self-defence. Mr. Barkley, as an experienced member of the Press Gallery, is well aware of those facilities, because on one occasion I was invited officially to meet representatives of the Press, and I indicated very clearly to them that, if they wished at any time to make representations to us, if they would put them in writing I would undertake that the Kitchen Committee would consider them.
I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is absolutely impossible to be more impartial or more fair than we have been in this particular matter. Therefore, having regard to these facts, members of my Committee apart from myself, can come to no other conclusion but that it is a deliberate attempt on the part of a


person, who should know better, to try to discredit me in the eyes of hon. Members of the House and in the eyes of the whole community.

1.41 a.m.

Mrs. Hill: I should like to support the Motion and the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee in his remarks. It is most unfortunate that a letter of this description should have been placed in the paper concerned, as it was. It was, indeed, a very heavy brick to hurl at the Chairman of the Committee, although he did get a half brick or even a whole brick back at him in the letter he put in the paper in reply. I must confirm that, to be perfectly fair, throughout all the time I served on the Kitchen Committee I have never heard the Chairman make any reference at all to any supplies from the Co-operative Society.
I myself, on this particular day, counter-signed the cheques made out for payment on cigarettes for that particular period, and I must say the amount for Co-operative cigarettes was very small indeed compared with other cigarettes over that period. It is grossly unfair that imputations should be made and not thoroughly cleared up, and I sincerely hope the House will agree that this matter should go to the Committee of Privileges, even if they have had another job given to them previously.

1.43 a.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I suggest to the House that they are making heavy weather of this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I hope hon. Members will allow me to proceed. I maintain that the reputation of the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee is good enough to put up with these pinpricks. No one in this House who knows him would accept for a second—[Interruption].

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I want the House to keep quiet while the hon. Gentleman is speaking.

Mr. Nicholson: No one would dream for a second that he was ever actuated by any motive but the most honourable. I am perfectly certain it needs no Committee of Privileges to keep his reputation as unstained as it is. If he believes that his personal honour is impaired, I withdraw my opposition, but I hope he

will not. I believe that Privilege is a very powerful weapon, and that it should only be used in cases of some magnitude. By continually invoking Privilege in minor cases—and I am not trying to beg the question by saying that this is a minor case—we shall reduce the dignity of the House and the power of the weapon when we really want to use it on a big matter. It has been the practice to raise a question of Privilege, have it declared to be a prima facie case, to bring it to the notice of the House and the public, and not to proceed to the further stage of having it remitted to the Committee of Privileges. I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman takes note of the unanimous verdict of all his colleagues on the Committee he will have fulfilled his object by calling attention to this matter.

Mr. H. Hynd: This is not a personal matter; it affects the Committee.

Mr. Nicholson: I have said my say. No one in this House suspects the hon. Gentleman, or any Member of the Committee, of any action that is not honest.

1.46 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I should have thought that the speech of the hon. Gentleman, in view of the line he took, would have wound up with a declaration that he thought that this letter of which the Committee complained, should receive the censure of the House.

Mr. Nicholson: I quite agree. It should receive the censure of the House, but I am against sending it to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Ede: There can be no doubt that this was a very gross personal attack on the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee. No one can read this letter without seeing in it the insinuation that because he is a Co-operator, that he has been called by his colleagues on the Kitchen Committee to the chair of that Committee, that he has used his position there to ensure for three weeks a monopoly of the cigarettes provided by the institution of which he is a member. I suggest the House cannot overlook such an accusation against a Member whom the hon. Gentleman opposite himself says is not held guilty by this House of any such practice as is alleged.

Mr. Nicholson: I tried to go as far as language would take me in expressing my esteem of the hon. Gentleman. I did not say I did not hold him guilty. I am prepared to support any proposal for condemnation of this letter, or even punishment, but I do not think that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman is being helpful to me in the course I am going to suggest to the House. There is no doubt in the mind of the hon. Gentleman that this is a most gross and unwarrantable attack on a Member who, irrespective of party, we all hold in esteem. In such circumstances, it has been the practice of the House not to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges, but to express its opinion that the letter—[Interruption]. I wish my hon. Friends would allow me just to complete a sentence. It has been the practice for the House to say straight away that the statement is a gross libel on the Member concerned. If you would accept it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would move the following manuscript Amendment: to leave out all words after the first "the" and to insert:
this House declares the letter of Mr. William Barkley a gross libel on the hon. Member for Bristol. North-East.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the proposed Amendment will do, and I propose that it be submitted in this form: to leave out from "said" to the end of the Question and add:
letter in the Daily Express by Mr. William Barkley constitutes a gross libel on the Chairman of the Select Committee and a contempt of this House.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from "said," to the end of the Question, and add "letter in the Daily Express by Mr. William Barkley constitutes a gross libel on the Chairman of the Select Committee and a contempt of this House" instead thereof.—[Mr. Ede.]

1.51 a.m.

Captain Crookshank: Until the right hon. Gentleman had completed his speech I was not aware of what he was going to propose, but there is ample precedent for wishing to take immediate action in a matter of this kind. I think the best course to take is to adopt the Amendment put before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, which makes it clear that in

the opinion of every hon. Member the letter was a gross libel on the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick). I think that on reflection he will be satisfied with what I am sure will be the unanimous verdict of the House.
As it has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in such strong terms, I hope for my part it will be accepted and that this matter will not have to go to the Committee of Privileges which would, presumably, not come to any very different conclusion. It would be considering the dignity of the House to come to this decision. We do not know what the Committee of Privileges would decide, but it may well come to this conclusion; I do not see how it could come to anything very different, after the speech the right hon. Gentleman has made.
I would add one slight consideration. The House has already remitted a matter of considerable complication to the Committee of Privileges, which, obviously, will have a good deal of work to do on that. The Session is coming to an end and should this matter be referred to it, I doubt if the Committee would have time to deal with it before we rise. In view of the imputation made on the hon. Gentleman, it would be better if the matter could be cleared up here and now in the terms of the Amendment. I think I speak for my hon. Friends when I say we would support the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.

1.54 a.m.

Mr. Nally: I understand that we are now face to face with two alternatives. One is to accept the Motion that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and the other is to accept the manuscript Amendment submitted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House records that what was written in the letter in the "Daily Express" represents a gross libel on my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee.
I should like to make one or two observations I think I am entitled to make. The hon. Lady the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) has been associated with the catering trade for many years, rather more lucratively than my hon. Friend, and in Manchester she is one of the foremost municipal figures. I think she has done the proper thing, the straightforward thing. We shall debate this for a considerably less time than was


given to a previous matter, which I regard as being of less importance.
The House should be informed of the circumstances in November, 1945, when, for the first time in its history, Co-operative cigarettes were sold in the House. As hon. Members opposite should bear in mind, there was a General Election in 1945, and a Labour Government was returned. Some of us who came into the House at that time were accustomed to smoking Co-operative cigarettes.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is going beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Nally: As a consequence, those of us who were accustomed to smoke Cooperative cigarettes put a proposition to those responsible for Co-operative cigarettes that although, we had been elected as Members of Parliament we were still entitled to the Co-operative cigarettes.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I stopped the hon. Gentleman a moment ago. He must keep to the terms of the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Nally: And of the Motion surely?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. We are talking on the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Do I understand that the House is suddenly asked to debate an Amendment moved by the Home Secretary? Surely, with great respect, it is open to my hon. Friend to give the House some background of the circumstances on which we are asked to pass an Amendment very different from the Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Amendment has been moved. That is what the House is discussing now, and I cannot help that.

Mr. Nally: I am still in doubt and will be grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We have before us a manuscript Amendment. After all, my right hon. Friend, in a previous debate, made an apology for a private conversation he had had. We have had no notice of the manuscript Amendment. I submit that I am entitled to discuss the relative merits of the Motion on the

Order Paper and the manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I am afraid not. The Amendment is what is before the House. It will have to be disposed of before we can go back to the Motion.

Mr. Keenan: Surely it is not a rule in this House that any Amendment submitted in the way this has been submitted shall kill, so far as discussion is concerned, the original proposition. May I point out that on an Amendment to any Clause of any Bill in this House both the Clause and the Amendment can be discussed. The same should take place in this case.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The question is, "That the words proposed to be left stand part of the Question." I was misleading the House in what I said a moment ago. I beg the pardon of the House.

Mr. Nally: I was trying to confine my remarks to give background to this debate. The Co-operative movement, to which I have the honour to belong, decided to make certain small supplies available to Members of the House. This fact was well known not only to Members but what is more important, to members of the Press Gallery. What I am distressed about, in relation to the letter in the "Daily Express" is the fact that Mr. Barkley, a journalist of wide experience and great reputation among those of us who are journalists, a man who those of us who are journalists admire and respect [HON. MEMBERS:
"Nonsense"]—put into the "Daily Express" what he knew to be untrue at the time [HON. MEMBERS: "How does the hon. Member admire and respect him then?"] If I may say so I do not admire the pluck of contributors to the "New Statesman and Nation," who do not even sign their names to their articles.
Mr. Barkley not only wrote a letter for the "Daily Express" that he knew must have been untrue, but the procedure adopted was one which, from a journalist's point of view, was dubious in the extreme. It is only on very rare occasions—and I can only think of four over a long number of years—that a journalist occupying a position of great prominence on a newspaper, instead of publishing what would have been a first-class news story had it been true, writes


it in the form of a letter which appears in the correspondence columns.
That leads me to the conclusion that not only did Mr. Barkley know what he was writing was untrue but, in the general newspaper practice, in order to protect the newspaper it was published as a letter from him in the same way as any letter from one of us. In my view this letter not only constitutes a serious attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick), who is Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, it is even worse than that. It shows the journalist referred to in one of his worst lights in that he took certain precautions to protect himself against what he knew to be untrue.
Therefore, it seems to me that the manuscript Amendment will not do. All it proposes is to record to the House that the letter was libellous. After that nothing at all happens. I suggest that the proper course is that the whole matter should he referred to the Committee of Privileges, exactly like we did in the other case tonight. It is a proper matter to be so referred and it is my sincere hope that the manuscript Amendment will not be accepted and that the Committee of Privileges will consider and report upon this matter.

2.5 a.m.

Mr. John Foster: One objection against the manuscript Amendment is that it condemns a man unheard. It seems a shocking principle of justice that the House should make a decision about the letter and what it constitutes without letting Mr. Barkley be heard. I take the letter as a joke. I did not laugh at it as a joke. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. and learned Member is a lawyer, That is why he took it as a joke."] But it may well be that Mr. Barkley meant it as a joke. I think it is shocking to see rows of hon. Members opposite taking the views they do about this matter. I do not say that it was a joke. I say that is one of the possibilities and I think the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) would agree that is one of the possibilities—he is very fair-minded. But the Home Secretary is quite prepared to condemn a man unheard.

Mr. Nally: I admit it may have been a joke If so, it was a joke in appalling bad taste, with very serious consequences. I should like to know at what time, in

what condition and in exactly what frame of mind Mr. Barkley wrote that letter.

Mr. Foster: The Home Secretary is quite prepared to condemn him unheard and to let it go out to the country that the House of Commons is certainly losing its sense of relevant importance, that it is always raising points of Privilege. In this case where it is proposed that instead of condemnation going out the man should be heard the Home Secretary says, "Oh No! Let us agree now to say it is a gross libel and leave it at that."

Mr. Ede: I have not said that I am going to leave it at that.

Mr. Foster: That makes it very much worse. Will the Home Secretary say what he proposes to do? I really think that in fairness to the House he ought to say what he means by that. Will the Home Secretary get up and say what he means?

Mr. Ede: If the House carries the Amendment for which, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said, there are plenty of precedents—of course, I know that the hon. and learned Member always regards a precedent against himself as a bad precedent—it will be for the House to consider what action should be taken. I would propose that a Motion should be put on the Order Paper so that the House should have an opportunity of deciding what would be the appropriate action to take. But after the speech made by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson)—I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member was in the House when the hon. Member spoke—I can think of no reason for the House not passing, in accordance with precedent, the Amendment, dealing with a most outrageous attack upon the probity of a respected Member.

Mr. Foster: That is an extraordinary proposal by the Home Secretary. He now proposes to condemn a man unheard, and then to decide what sentence he shall inflict. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The ranks of the Labour Party shout "Hear, hear" because that suits their attitude to justice very well. But surely the Home Secretary is the Minister who should be the first to support the principle of justice that no man shall be condemned unheard.
There were precedents in the past, when justice was not so far advanced as


it is nowadays, of the House condemning people unheard. There were cases, as has been said in the course of this debate, of people being put in prison—a couple of judges, the printers, Stock-dale and Hansard. Though he still has not informed the House, I suppose that the Home Secretary has in mind what step he intends to take against Mr. Barkley. Will the Home Secretary tell us what he has in mind? [Interruption.] When the hon. Member for Bilston spoke he was given a silent and courteous reception on this side of the House. But hon. Members opposite have for the last two hours tried to stop every one hon. Member on these benches from speaking. It was not until the Home Secretary intervened and appealed to his stooges to keep order that a fair hearing was obtained by the hon. and learned Member for Norwich, South (Mr. H. Strauss).
This is an important matter, and it is a matter which will look very odd tomorrow when it is seen that the Home Secretary proposes to condemn this man unheard, and then to put down a Motion in the House and yet not say what he has in mind to put into that Motion. After all, he is Leader of the House, and he must have in mind something. He is not going to toss up if the House accepts his manuscript Amendment, which I hope it will not do. There cannot be a Motion without any content. The Home Secretary does not see fit even to acquaint Mr. William Barkley as to the course he proposes to take against him.
I suggest that if the House of Commons accepts the Amendment it is preparing to take a very dangerous step. It is no good appealing to the precedents of the past. It must be wrong to condemn a man unheard. [An HON. MEMBER: "Write a letter to the 'Daily Express'."] Well, that raises another point, of whether the House is not attaching too much importance to the whole matter. The Chairman of the Kitchen Committee did write to the "Daily Express," and it is obvious to me, from the debate so far—

Mr. Coldrick: If I may interrupt, could I ask if it would not be a correct thing for the Committee of Privileges to decide? I was merely concerned, in

writing to the "Daily Express" to point out that the facts were not as stated.

Mr. Foster: I cannot agree with the hon. Member, because if he regarded this as a serious reflection on him, intended seriously—[Interruption.] It is all very well for all this noise to go on; hon. Members opposite are not listening to what I am trying to say. But then this business is brought on at this late hour, and hon. Members keep on interrupting because they do not like discussing subjects late at night. That is not my fault; the Government so badly arranges its business that these things are brought on in the middle of the night, and matters are seen in a very curious light.
What I was saying was that if the hon. Member regarded this as a serious reflection on himself—and by that I mean seriously intended—then it was a matter of Privilege which he should have raised at once. What he thought at first I do not know; but he apparently took no more notice of it than to write to the
"Daily Express" and point out that the statement was not true. If he took it seriously, as meant seriously, then he could have raised it at once. But that did not happen; the matter was sifted through the Kitchen Committee, and eventually the House is considering it at this hour of the morning. I say that the Home Secretary's manuscript amendment is unjust, and will have very serious consequences if accepted.

2.13 a.m.

Mr. Mitchison: It is very late, and I do not propose, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to say much. First. I am not a journalist, nor am I a Minister; I am not, on this occasion at any rate, splitting hairs, nor engaged in being a party politician. I am speaking as an ordinary back-bencher, and as such, it seems to me that this statement is a gross libel on a respected hon. Member of this House. I fail to see the justice or good sense in the suggestion that the man who made the statement is being convicted without hearing or trial. The statement speaks for itself.
Unless we are to disbelieve the hon. Member immediately concerned, as well as every other hon. member of the Kitchen Committee, then this statement is as we are asked to declare it—a gross libel. We are not concerned with what


is to follow; we are not concerned with what might have been done if this matter had been brought up at this time, or that time, but with the bare point that, quite obviously, an hon. Member whom we all respect and who is discharging his duties on a Committee of this House to the best of his ability, has been grossly libelled in a daily newspaper.
We are not merely concerned with the opinion of this House, because we all know the hon. Member concerned and we would not believe it for a minute. What we are concerned with is to vindicate our own dignity as a House and the honour and good faith of an hon. Member who has been grossly libelled in this way. This seems to me to be an absolutely simple matter and I regard it as wholly ridiculous and undignified to make the kind of speech the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) has just made. I have known him long enough for him to allow me to say that.

2.15 a.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I rise to support the Amendment proposed by the Home Secretary and, in particular, to support what was said earlier by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). We have decided to submit to the Committee of Privileges what seems to be an extremely important matter and I should have thought that one ought not to submit another matter to the same Committee at this stage of the Session, if another equally good course can be found. In my view, the course which the Leader of the House has recommended is a perfectly reasonable one.
I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) say that, in his opinion, this matter was more important than the complaint of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis), which we decided to submit to the Commitee of Privileges. Without wanting to go over that matter again, I should have thought a question arising out of an action which is both regarded by the police as a crime and claimed by an hon. Member as a Privilege, is considerably more important than a dispute as to whether or not non-Co-operative cigarettes can be obtained in this House. But in any case, I cannot see why there

is any need for objecting to the Home Secretary's proposed Amendment.
I find myself, for the first time since I have been in this House, in the fullest agreement with what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said. He was fair in saying that there is no reason why we should not declare this letter to be a gross libel. I cannot see what defence Mr. Barkley can have. It is the kind of letter written in a foolish moment. It is a gross libel and I hope the House will accept the Amendment proposed by the Home Secretary.

2.18 a.m.

Mr. Crossman: I shall not delay the House more than a few moments except to support the Leader of the House. This is the right course to take, though I should like to feel sure that we shall not simply pass this Motion, but that some action will follow later. I cannot help feeling that this particular event has a considerable importance. After all, the importance is that the libel having been published and a reply having been given, there was no withdrawal of any sort. On the contrary, there was an actual repetition of the libel all over again.
It certainly does no good to journalists to have that sort of thing done in a newspaper with 4 million circulation. It is no good hon. Members opposite saying, "After all, we all know the hon. Member so well here that no damage is done." Millions of people outside the House will assume, if no action is taken, that there is something in it. Some of this will always stick, whatever action we take. Here is a completely outrageous libel, not only on an individual, because that is not the object of the libel, but on a movement.
I think it is fair to say that this is all the more serious because it is published as a systematic campaign of vilification and deliberate discrediting of the Co-operative movement which has been carried on by the "Daily Express" year after year. All that we have had confirmed in this instance is that when they cannot get anything true with which to tarnish the Co-operative movement they invent plain lies in order to do it. Surely the House must take cognisance of that fact.
The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) said we were condemning unheard. The Kitchen Committee, which is not composed only of Co-operators, and not only of Members on this side of the House, has unanimously decided to make this recommendation.

Sir John Mellor: Did the Kitchen Committee invite Mr. William Barkley to go before it.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and give him an opportunity of saying anything he wished to say?

Mr. Crossman: I am very glad to reply to the hon. Gentleman. To start with, the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, by writing to the "Daily Express," gave Mr. William Barkley ample opportunity for apologising and withdrawing the lie.

Mr. Messer: Or justifying it.

Mr. Crossman: Or justifying it. That opportunity was not taken. The Committee inquired into the truth or falsehood of the allegations, and there was no need to get Mr. William Barkley before it to discover the facts unanimously reported here, that there was not one vestige of truth either in the first allegation or in the reply to the letter which denied it. I cannot see what the Kitchen Committee would have gained by inviting Mr. Barkley there, since the Chairman had already given him the opportunity of making the abject apology he should have made when the denial was given.
I would only say to the Home Secretary that I hope that something very drastic will be suggested to the House; but I do hope something even more, and that is that people outside the House will anticipate the action of the House by defending their profession by doing the necessary thing which should be done before the House orders them to do it.

2.22 a.m.

Mr. Grimond: I had no intention of intervening because I am one of those Members of the House who know very little about the things we are discussing—questions of Privilege, and so on. I must confess that when the Home Secretary's proposal was made, supported by the right hon. and gallant

Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) I was perfectly content with it. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) has raised in my mind considerable doubts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am merely asking for guidance and information on this matter.
We are told there are precedents for passing an Amendment like the one before us. It is, I am sure everyone will agree, a fairly stiffly worded Amendment. It condemns a man for having perpetrated a gross libel. I am not saying whether that is right or whether it is wrong, and I have no doubt that the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee is entirely innocent of everything alleged against him. But is this House really to accept this position, that we not only condemn this man unheard, but, having done that, go on to sentence him without giving him any chance of making any plea in mitigation?
It does not seem to me quite true to say that there is no need to hear him because he is obviously guilty. That is surely not the principle which applies in any other form of trial in this country today. A man may be clearly guilty, but he has the right to plead
"Not guilty" and to be heard and to make his case; and if he pleads "Guilty" he has the right to make a plea in mitigation. I only ask the House whether this is really what we are going to do tonight—to condemn this man and then to go on to pass sentence on him?

2.25 a.m.

Mr. Hardy: I do not propose to speak for very long, but I feel that I cannot possibly support the manuscript Amendment. I must support the Kitchen Committee, because my view is that unless we support the Motion on the Order Paper in the names of the six members of the Committee they stand condemned by the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am expressing my personal opinion. The House appointed these six hon. Members because they were thought to be fit and proper persons to serve on this Committee. I got the impression from reading this letter that people who read it would think that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick), was not a fit and proper person to be the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee.
It is no use saying, as was said by the hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) that, because some other question —to my mind a much less important one —has been referred to the Committee of Privileges, to refer this matter to them as well and give that Committee two jobs to do would be to give them too much. I admit that there is not the same immediate urgency about this matter as there was about the previous matter. I feel that a person should not get away with a gross libel, but if we knew what were the intentions of the Home Secretary with regard to the Motion he intends to put upon the Order Paper I should not be in the dilemma I am in at the moment. It is not enough merely to say that what has been said about an hon. Member of this House is a gross libel—

Mr. Messer: That is not the Motion.

Mr. Hardy: The manuscript Amendment moved by the Home Secretary is simply an expression of opinion through this House that what appeared in the newspaper was a gross libel upon the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee. What does that mean? What does it convey? What will follow that? That is what I want to know. I should prefer the person concerned to be examined by the Committee of Privileges.
I have been in this House since 1945, and it has been strange to me to notice, when matters are referred to the Committee of Privileges, that the only time we had a division or a fight in the House is when a Conservative is reported to that Committee. That was certainly so on the last occasion, in connection with the bishop. Hon. Members will remember the fight that took place on that occasion. I do not think we are treating the Chairman or the Members of the Kitchen Committee, or the Members of this House, fairly if we accept the manuscript Amendment without any further information from the Home Secretary.

2.28 a.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I do not smoke cigarettes, and, therefore, am not so expert about this as other hon. Members. But what is the libel about which we are talking? The letter in question names the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee; it says he belongs to the Co-op. and what constituency he represents; it then goes on to say that

prices have gone up—that is true—and adds:
for three weeks there have been no cigarettes on offer in this palace except Co-op. brands".
To say "in this palace" was inaccurate, but in the part of this Palace in which Mr. Barkley could buy cigarettes I believe it was true, for this very simple reason. Very few hon. Members of the party opposite buy Co-op. cigarettes—[HON. MEMBERS:
"Nonsense."] I have taken some trouble to find out about this today. There is a certain ration of cigarettes of all kinds. Many Members of the party opposite get in rather early when they come from the provinces and buy up most of the ordinary proprietary brands, and what are left over are the Co-op. cigarettes, which become virtually an un-saleable commodity.
Let us be honest about this. I did not know there was such a thing as a Co-op. cigarette until I read this document. I have not yet met anybody who smoked them with any satisfaction. Do not let us be humbugged about this. For some reason the Kitchen Committee buys more Co-operative cigarettes than anyone wants to smoke, and for that reason Mr. Barkley —I have known him for 20 years—[An HON. MEMBER: "Of course."] It so happens that Mr. Barkley was educated in my constituency, and is very highly thought of there. He has not communicated with me and I have not seen him to speak to for over a month.
I have discussed this with a number of his colleagues, who have access to only one place where they can buy cigarettes —[An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true."]—and that is in their own bar. For a substantial period in that bar they could not buy any cigarettes except those they did not want to buy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I may be talking nonsense, but I am expressing what a very considerable number of members of the Press Gallery have said to me.
In other words, the only cigarettes available to Mr. Barkley in this Palace for a substantial period were those manufactured by the Co-operative Society, which the bulk of hon. Members opposite will not buy. Since this matter was raised there has been a very marked influx in the smoking rooms to which Members opposite have access, of the other kind of cigarette. Hon. Members, if I may say so with due respect, are


making rather fools of themselves on this charge.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: On a point of order, is it in order for an hon. Member on the other side to state emphatically that the Report we have received from the Kitchen Committee is not true.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not gather that what was said was out of order.

Mr. Crossman: If I heard the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) aright he has just asserted that the Committee has made a completely untrue statement. He has asserted that the Press Gallery had only Co-operative cigarettes, although it is clearly stated in this Report that the Press were given 13,390 cigarettes, of which only 3,600 were Co-operative. Therefore, he has clearly announced that in his view the unanimous report of the Committee is a plain lie.

Sir H. Williams: I read the hon. Gentleman every Sunday, and I am just as much impressed by what he has said as I am on Sundays.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I have your Ruling on this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? I did put a direct question to you.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly. I gave the right hon. Gentleman my Ruling. I did not hear anything said which I thought out of order.

Sir H. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the difference between a point of order and a point of information.
During this period so many cigarettes were issued, but the point is that the bulk of cigarettes people wanted to buy were bought up in the earlier part of the period, and at the end of the period only those cigarettes no one wants to smoke were left. I had the information that the bulk of the cigarettes made by private enterprise are brought up in the earlier part of the rationing period by hon. Members of the party opposite, with the result that there are very few left. [AN HON. MEMBER: How does the hon. Member know? He is not in the Press Gallery."] No, but I have made some inquiries. Hon. Members opposite must take their medicine. I think that the whole thing

is a lot of nonsense. I hope that the Home Secretary will withdraw his Amendment, and that the Motion will also be withdrawn. This is the most foolish nonsense I have ever heard in the House.

2.35 a.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has introduced a peculiar strain into the debate because every previous speaker, I think, has agreed that the statement complained of constitutes a gross libel on the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick). I think, first of all, that it would be very wise for the House to accept the proposal of the Home Secretary, and not pursue the matter further. It would be wise for the reasons originally stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). It would settle the matter, and make clear to the country the views of the whole of the House about the statement made by Mr. William Barkley, and the way in which he conducted himself following it.
But I am disturbed by the further suggestion of the Home Secretary that following the passage of this Motion some further action is to be taken. I do not think it is a good thing that the decision as to who is to sit in the Press Gallery should be made by the House of Commons. I think it should be made by the newspapers concerned. It would be a very dangerous principle if we were to have a series of Motions put forward, deciding which particular kind of cases perpetrated by journalists are going to decide which journalists should sit there.
I think this is a gross libel written in the "Daily Express," but it is not the first I have seen written in the "Daily Express," nor the first I have seen in several other newspapers. I could give a list of several journalists who could have been expelled if the House of Commons had thought fit at the time. Many were more famous than Mr. Barkley. Mr. William Hazlitt would have been expelled, and a whole lot of other journalists who have written libels, regarded as such at that time, would have expelled if the House had passed Motions deciding who should sit in the Press Gallery.

Mr. James Hudson: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the


House did take action against a journalist, a member of this party, and that he was expelled as a result? I refer to Mr. Garry Allighan.

Mr. Foot: I was strongly opposed to his expulsion. I did not think that the House of Commons had any such right.
Just as I was opposed to the House of Commons taking that action so I am opposed to the House of Commons deciding who should sit in the Press Gallery. It is a pity that the Home Secretary should have suggested that there is to be some further action without specifically saying what that action is to be. Surely if we are to judge in this matter we ought to judge all at one time, and not take action, first of all, which prejudices some further action which we may take at another time. I hope the matter will be decided by accepting the Home Secretary's Amendment, because I think it would most conform with the dignity of the House if we thereafter let the whole matter drop.

Mr. Ede: With the leave of the House, I would like to say that, quite frankly, I moved the Amendment because I thought after the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) there could be no doubt as to what the mind of the House was, and I was anxious to save the time of the House. But I am quite certain that if the Committee of Privileges is to discharge the duty already committed to it by the House today it would not be possible to deal with this matter as well.
May I deal with the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster). Erskine May is quite emphatic on this point. On page 140 it states:
It has been objected that to adjudge that the offence has been committed before hearing the accused party is a very serious deviation from the common course of criminal justice. As, however, the question whether the writing is defamatory can, in most cases, be determined from the terms of the document without recourse to extrinsic evidence, and as the falsity of the libel is not an essential element of the offence, if the defamatory character of the writing is apparent on its face, no explanation which might be offered could alter the decision of the House on that point, though it might materially influence the House in deciding what punishment, if any, to inflict upon the parties responsible for the publication. Moreover, it is only in cases where the words which form the subject of the complaint are too grossly libellous to admit of any satisfactory explanation that this course is followed.

I suggest that on the arguments we have heard here this evening, including the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Hardy), that position has been established.

Mr. Foster: Whether right or wrong, I maintain that the gross part is capable of explanation. Let us suppose that on the first two days of the three weeks the whole 13,000 cigarettes were bought and for the rest of the 21 days Mr. William Barkley, not knowing that the 13,000 had been bought, had only had Co-operative cigarettes offered to him. That is capable of argument. Suppose Mr. William Barkley knew that before he wrote that letter, we would look fools. The Home Secretary must realise that although prima facie it looks like a gross libel, it may not be.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled to make a second speech.

Mr. Ede: I asked for leave of the House and no objection was taken. I do not think anything the hon. and learned Gentleman has so far said detracts from the weight of the paragraph I read from Erskine May on this matter. I agree with the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). I would be the last person to attempt to exclude anyone from the Gallery of the House. I understand that the precedent in these matters is that the person with regard to whom such a Motion is carried is asked to attend the House, when Mr. Speaker informs him of the Motion that has been carried. That would give him an opportunity of expressing his wish to apologise to the House and to the hon. Member who had been libelled and, in this case, it may also enable him to say, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) that it was all a joke.
I do not know whether the hon. Member would accept that explanation. I suggest to the House that, in spite of what the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) said, the obvious intention of this letter was to suggest that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) had used his position as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee to further the trade of an institution with which he was connected, and this intention was not disowned in the subsequent note appended to my hon. Friend's reply.


If it did not mean that, it did not mean anything at all and was quite pointless.
I hope that the House will now feel that it can come to a decision in this matter. I still think that, in the words of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), we should best be consulting our dignity by declaring that this is a gross libel on a well-respected hon. Member of the House and a contempt of the House. If that Motion is carried, I should move, if you will accept it Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Mr. William Barkley be ordered to attend on this House this day, so that the censure of the House can then and there be conveyed to him.

Mr. Bell: Mr. Bell (Bucks, South) rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The original Question was, "That the said Report be referred to the Committee of Privileges"—

Mr. Bell: Mr. Bell rose—

Hon. Members: Order! Sit down.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The House has instructed me to put the Question.

Mr. Bell: On a point of order. Hon. Members: Order! Behave.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No question of order can arise.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put accordingly, and negatived.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the said letter in the 'Daily Express' by Mr. William Barkley constitutes a gross libel on the Chairman of the Select Committee and a contempt of this House.

2.48 a.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That Mr. William Barkley do attend this House this day."

Sir H. Williams: I have not been present on a similar occasion, but here is a Motion of which we have had no prior notice. It may be that the Motion we have just carried was right. Now we are being asked, without any notice, to pass a further Motion, not on the Order Paper, without any proper consideration to give what appears to be a censure. Surely we must have some sense of justice. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh!] Hon. Gentlemen who interrupt me do not believe in democratic institutions, but only in the complete system of dictatorship—[HON. MEMBERS: "The 'Daily Express'."]—and would have us pass another Motion, without any consideration or without any notice having been given, summoning someone to the Bar tomorrow. In my judgment, if this was the course the Government intended to pursue, there ought to have been proper notice on the Paper, and it seems to me utterly wrong that this should have been done towards this gentleman. I think it is a little monstrous, and I appeal to the Home Secretary not to press his second Motion of which no notice has been given.

2.50 a.m.

Mr. Bell: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) in the arguments he has addressed to the House and in the appeal he has made to the Foreign Secretary. [Laughter.] Well I think the Home Secretary has been associated perhaps with some matters which are foreign to English principles of justice in this debate.
I wish to record my protest also against the House being asked to decide matters of this kind at three o'clock in the morning when they have not appeared on the Order Paper. It means that many hon. Members who might wish to be here and have strong views on matters of this kind have not had the opportunity of being here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because they had no idea that anything of this kind was to be moved or a decision of this nature taken. In a serious matter like this, a Motion should appear on the Order Paper of the House of Commons in order that people may have time to think it over and those who wish to be present make it convenient for themselves to be present. I protest against matters of this kind being decided at this time in this way.

Mr. Crouch: I do not wish to detain the House for very long at this hour. Protests have been made against the Motion now before us and I must say I had no knowledge whatever of it. It seems to me extraordinary that the House should be asked to decide without any previous notice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has said, it is unfair that without due notice this gentleman should be brought to the Bar of the House to give an account to the House of why he published that letter. This House would be taking a retrograde step in dealing with a subject of this kind in the manner it is proposed it should do.

Mr. H. Hynd: The last three speeches demand a word in reply. The hon. Members who delivered them did not challenge the decision of the House. An Amendment has been carried that. a gross libel has been committed. Surely it is not going to be left at that. If nothing else is done, the "Daily Express" need not even report that decision. Apparently the gentleman concerned can go scot-free after the House, by a decisive vote, has decided that he has been guilty of a libel. It does not make sense. Therefore, for the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), the hon. Member for Bucks, South (Mr. Bell) and the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) to protest against any action being taken is a reflection upon the decision of the House.

2.53 a.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I understand it, the House is now being asked to perform the judicial duty of pronouncing sentence. The previous decision of the House—and it would be out of order to say anything about it—was, as it were, a finding of "Guilty." I really wonder whether the House is in the mood at this moment for the performance of the very delicate duty of deciding upon sentence.
The point I should like to put to the House is whether, after a debate which has been somewhat animated at times and in which strong feeling has been shown, we are really now in the mood to perform that judicial duty of deciding sentence. [An HON. MEMBER: "You ought to be."] That intervention strengthens the submission I was making to the House. Nothing would be lost by postponing dis-

cussion of this Motion of which, as has been said, no notice has been given on the Order Paper.
Nothing would be lost by letting it appear on the Order Paper for the later Sitting today and discussing it and, if necessary, deciding upon it then. Having listened to this Debate, I am bound to put on record that I do not believe that this House would be performing its high judicial functions in the right way, or in the right mood, if it were to come to a decision on sentence at 2.55 a.m., after a debate of this character.

2.55 a.m.

Mr. Foot: I do not think that this is altogether a small matter that we are discussing. We are discussing the relations of the House of Commons with the Press. On many previous occasions when journalists have been summoned to the Bar of the House of Commons, it has been a big matter. I do not think that this is a matter to be decided at such brief notice. As for my hon. Friend on this side of the House who said that it was inconsistent for anyone to protest against this Motion if he had not protested against the previous Amendment, I would only say that when I spoke on the previous Amendment I said that that Amendment should be passed and that no further action ought to be taken.
On the Order Paper of this House this morning I saw a Motion suggesting that this matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. It may be that many hon. Members have gone home to-night. I do not think that those hon. Members who are present should condemn them, because those who have gone home have taken the view, naturally, I think, that this matter would automatically be referred to the Committee of Privileges, and would therefore come back to the House, when they would have an opportunity of discussing it. [Interruption.] Other hon. Members happen to have sat here tonight—[An HON. MEMBER: "Happen to have sat here?"] Yes. I happen to have sat here tonight.
Certainly no hon. Member of this House of Commons this morning could have known that at three o'clock a Motion was to be passed summoning a journalist to the Bar of the House of Commons, which I say, far from being a small thing, is an important matter. I say, too, that we ought not to use so


awe-inspiring a summons as that to deal with such a miserable incident as this— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, a miserable incident. If hon. Members think that it is of no importance to maintain not only the rights of this House but also of the Press Gallery, they are making a great mistake.
If hon. Members will go away and read their history, they will learn that there have been cases in the history of this House when the liberty of this country was protected by the Press against the House of Commons. Those are the facts. Therefore, I say that it is a miserable incident, because I think there was a miserable libel perpetrated by the journalist concerned, and I do not believe that summoning that journalist to the Bar of the House of Commons is the right way to deal with it. I said that on the previous Amendment, and I have the right to go on saying it, whatever hon. Members on this side of the House may say. I voted in favour of the Amendment because I thought there had been a gross libel, but because I thought that, it does not mean that I think it right that at three o'clock in the morning the House should make up its mind whether it is going to invoke the whole machinery of summoning someone to the Bar upon an important matter.
Some hon. Members on this side of the House who interrupted me seemed to suggest that whenever this kind of libel is committed—and I believe it has been committed by the Press more frequently than some hon. Members imagine—we are going to summon people to the Bar of the House of Commons. I think that would make a farce of the whole procedure. Even if I am wrong on that—though I do not believe that I am—I do not think that it is right for the House of Commons on a manuscript Motion—and following the previous manuscript Amendment—to decide at three o'clock in the morning that it is going to use the machinery of summoning a person to the Bar. For that reason, if this Motion is put, I shall certainly do my best to divide the House against it.

3.0 a.m.

Captain Crookshank: We have now considered this matter for a very long time, and the House has already come to certain decisions. For my part, I

have tried to find out whether certain action had to follow the proposal of the Home Secretary or not. Sometimes, as with the Closure Motion, the House has no option; but so far as I can see from looking at the records, and from such conversations as I have had, it is not obligatory that we make a decision. Therefore, there is certain time, and the House is not bound here and now.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the suggestion that we stop discussing this matter any further, and come back to it, if the House thinks fit, on another day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the reason that has been stated by my hon. Friends. The Business of the House was to consider whether to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges. The House decided not to do that, but accepted another solution. But hon. Members—and especially those who were not here earlier—may be surprised tomorrow to find that we have taken the matter further without calm reflection; and some of the interchanges of the last two hours have not been of the most calm and sedative nature. Therefore, I suggest that we adjourn the debate—

Mr. Balfour: On a point of order. Mr. William Barkley, when he made the allegations, must have been convinced what he was writing was—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That seems to be a question on the merits of the case, and not a point of order.

Captain Crookshank: I was going to say that there seem to be two courses open to the House. Either we can withdraw the Motion altogether and start a debate on a similar Motion tomorrow, or we can adjourn the debate, which would mean that this Motion would appear on the Order Paper. From the last few speeches which I have heard, it would seem that the Government would not be definitely committed to the wording of this Motion, but I leave that, of course, to the wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman. I do suggest, however, that the House accept one of the courses I have proposed.

Mr. Ede: This is a Motion to which I have the right of reply for a second time without asking the leave of the House, but if I may be permitted, in view of the


hour, to say a few sentences, I should like to point out that I am impressed by the desire of a good many hon. Members not to proceed further tonight after the unanimous decision of the House on the main issue. That, I think, was a very satisfactory ending to a debate which had some animated passages. Therefore, it would be as well if, at this stage, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) points out, we did not proceed further tonight. It may be possible to put something, fully considered, before the House, and I shall ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion, so that anything we decide to do can be fully considered.
I share very largely the views expressed by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). I am the last person who would wish to do anything which would interfere with the liberty of the House, or with reasonable criticism of the House or of any hon. Member of the House by the Press, but the House has decided tonight, without a dissentient, that this particular matter went beyond the limit. I hope that it might be possible that the writer might consider the decision of the House so far, and that it might be possible in that way to arrive at a solution which would not infringe any of the principles which were urged by the hon. Member for Devon-port. I hope the House, therefore, will allow the Motion to be withdrawn. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Motion cannot be withdrawn.

3.6 a.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: On the question whether the Motion be withdrawn or not, might I, before the House reaches a decision, ask the Home Secretary if he would clarify one point? I understand there is a general desire to do two things. On the one hand, as far as I can gather the sense of the House, particularly on these benches, there is a very general desire that the Motion which the House has carried should not be left where it is, but should be followed up by one of the consequential measures which usually follow when a Motion is

carried condemning a gross libel on an hon. Member of the House.
On the other hand, equally, I gather, there is a feeling that it would not be consonant with the dignity of the House and the judicial nature of the procedure of the House to take a decision without a Notice appearing on the Order Paper. Will the Home Secretary give an assurance that if the Motion now before us is withdrawn—

Mr. Ede: It cannot be withdrawn now.

Mr. Fletcher: —he will put down another Motion on the Order Paper at an early date?

Mr. Ede: As I understand it—[Interruption.] I have spent some time this evening trying to enable the House to come to a decision upholding its privileges and asserting its dignity. I have had no other motive than that. If I may be allowed to say so, I resent some of the insinuations which are behind the objection to the course that I last proposed. I am not concerned with shielding Mr. Barkley or anyone else from the full effect of any offence they have committed against the House, but I hope we may be allowed to consider our own dignity in the matter.
I am willing to make a suggestion, as the House cannot now agree to the Motion being withdrawn because it has been once objected to. Therefore, I cannot ask permission to withdraw and the House cannot give me permission to do so; but if an hon. Member will move that the debate be adjourned, that will keep the matter on the Order Paper, and I shall then consider with the persons who are interested what will be the course likely to be most acceptable to the House to make the previous decision of the House effective. I would suggest that this course would enable the House to feel that its decision will be implemented in a way that will cause the least offence.

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned."

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed this day.

Orders of the Day — MOBILITY OF LABOUR

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Royle.]

3.11 a.m.

Mr. Bell: I will now ask the House to consider a rather calmer matter than that which has recently engaged its attention. Since I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is good enough to be here at this advanced hour, I shall try to make my remarks as short as possible. I wish to raise the important question of the mobility of labour in respect of the re-armament programme and also in relation to the general industrial situation.
The importance of the best use of labour for the re-armament programme is not a matter which I need underline to the House, because that has been already done on several occasions by Ministers of the Crown. In the Memorandum which the Ministry of Labour presented to Sub-committee B of the Select Committee on Estimates, special reference was made to the importance of making the best use of labour. In paragraph 4 of the Memorandum, it is stated that it is important that employers and workers should co-operate with the Ministry of Labour Employment Exchanges to ensure that workers who wish to change their employment in the inevitable readjustment of the economy are placed as far as possible on important work that will make full use of their skill.
I think, apart altogether from the rearmament programme, it has become plain during the last two or three years that one serious problem which this country faces is the fact that there is a certain amount of over-employment—that men are often employed in circumstances where they either have to work short time or else are retained only because their employers fear that if they part with them they will not get labour when they subsequently need it. All these difficulties arise from the fact that labour in this country has ceased to be mobile in the way in which it used to be.
For both the re-armament programme and general industrial purposes, it is quite clear that we shall not get the best use of the available labour unless we can ensure that it flows freely to the places where it is wanted, to the industries which

are under-manned and from the industries which it is desired, in accordance with national policy, should be reduced in their staff and output. I think those are aims with which the Minister of Labour will entirely agree, and I wish to indicate a few of the courses which he could take in order to give some kind of lead and show some kind of initiative in bringing about that desirable mobility of labour.
First, I refer very briefly to the difficulty which impedes the geographical transfer of labour from one part of the country to another, and that is the shortage of houses. That is not a matter for which the Minister of Labour himself is directly responsible, but it is a matter upon which he might be able to make representations to his Ministerial colleagues. There is an absolute shortage of houses throughout the country, which puts a great premium on the actual occupation of a house and causes great reluctance on the part of a man to leave a house in which he is living.
In addition, there is the fact that the allocation of new houses is based on local authority areas, and it is well known that when a man leaves the area in which he is domiciled and goes to employment in another area, he not only leaves the house he is living in for, possibly, temporary billets, but he also has to go to the bottom of the housing list in the new area to which he has moved. Indeed, some local authorities will not take on to their housing lists people who were not living in the area at the end of the war, or upon some other arbitrary date. So there are serious obstacles standing in the way of the geographical shifting of labour, and I hope the Minister will consider, in discharging his responsibilities to procure a proper labour force, whether he could take some initiative in that respect.
Apart from geographical shifts of labour, there are movements which must be made from one industry to another, possibly in the same area. It is envisaged in the memorandum which the Minister of Labour submitted to the Select Committee that redundancy shall deliberately be created in a certain number of industries, mainly through the allocation of raw materials. "Redundancy" is a nicer word for unemployment. The intention is quite clearly to put people out of employment in particular industries in order


that they may be shifted into those which are more essential.
That is one of the lines of national policy at the moment, and if it is to be successful in effecting the transfer of labour without causing unemployment, it is essential that the workers should be able and willing to move into the new industries. If there is direction of labour, they can be compelled to go, but without direction of labour there must be willing transfers, and people will not transfer willingly unless the conditions upon which they are transferred are fair.
In many cases at the present time a trade union will not accept an adult entrant. I do not want to go into great detail about that. The Amalgamated Engineering Union is one which has a restriction upon entry; it will not accept a man who is over 40 years of age. That is rule 22, paragraph 5, of the A.E.U. rules. The Transport and General Workers' Union has no fixed age limit, but in rule 20, paragraph 7, it allows its various areas and district committees to make their own age limits. In fact in the engineering industry in particular, although I think in many others also, a person who transfers from a job where he was not in the A.E.U. into another employment where the A.E.U. is the appropriate union, would not be allowed to join the A.E.U. unless he was able to comply with certain very stringent requirements.
It is proposed in the Memorandum to which I have referred that these difficulties should be overcome by processes called upgrading and dilution. I have very little to say about upgrading because, provided it is done with discrimination, no great detriment will result; but if by dilution is meant what we have known as dilution up to now, that persons moving are put into an inferior category, not fully established, always the first to go if any shortage should develop, and working perhaps on a lower scale of remuneration, then I would say to the Minister that he should not rely upon that process in the coming months for transferring labour from one industry to another.
We have had a lot of trouble already with dilutees and relaxation agreements, and I hope the Minister will observe the principle in future that dilution should be a question of skill. If a man does not

come up to the requisite standard of the union concerned and is in fact a dilutor—I think that is the correct expression—it is fair to treat him as such: but if he does reach the proper standard of trade skill then, irrespective of his age or the union from which he came, he should be treated as a fully skilled and established worker. Unless that is done, men will not willingly transfer.
We know that there will have to be a large increase in the numbers of skilled workmen employed in the engineering industry. About 500.000 additional workers will be needed for re-armament, and the impression I gather from this Report is that about 40 per cent. of them will be skilled. Therefore, it is a very big problem with which the Minister is faced. If it is to be solved without direction of labour, the Minister will have to consider the attitude of the men in relation to housing and to their status when they are transferred from one industry to another.
If the Government training centres are to be used widely to train the new skilled labour, then the people who come out of those training centres should be given a chance, after an appropriate period of apprenticeship in the industry, regardless of their age—call it probation if you like. Workers going to Government training centres now are often treated as dilutees when they reach their destination, and that is a bad thing.
These are difficult points; I put them forward in no contentious spirit but in the desire to be helpful. I know that the Minister will have to do this cautiously, and in consultation with the trade unions. I am anxious to raise the matter in this way because it is one that we must keep constantly before us, and we ought not to try to repeat the wartime procedure without closely looking at it in its ultimate consequence.
The retention of old people in employment should be considered in relation to this question of mobility. There is a real risk, when older men are displaced, that they will not be accepted, in the employment of destination, in those categories the Minister wants to build up. I saw a case in the local newspaper—I believe it has already been drawn to the attention of the Minister of Transport—where a man was told that he was too old at 42 to be engaged as a railway clerk. The


Transport Executive would not consider him because at that age it was not willing to take a man in 'as a railway clerk. That sort of thing must not go on if we are to get labour transferred into the industries we want to build up.
The Minister must also watch very closely the effect of the whole system of control upon industry. I know that the whole object of control is usually to divert labour, materials, and resources into the channels which are desired, but the whole structure of controls taken in mass tends to exert a conservative influence on industry. It tends to base industry on the pattern of the datum line, 1939 or 1945, because allocations and licences are always based on some past date. Inevitably a system of controls tends to freeze the existing pattern, which I believe has been frozen too long.
There has been a sort of petrifying influence at work, partly because of the fear of the Government of any sort of unemployment, and partly as a result of the vast system of controls. As a result of this petrifying system, we do not have the proper flow which ought to mark a free economy able to meet changing needs and demands. I think that one of our major difficulties at present is not really a shortage of labour but the fact that labour is not placed to the best advantage. There is under-use of labour in many instances, and there is an unwillingness to move from place to place.
If the Minister would investigate these matters we should find all the extra labour for re-armament without difficulty, and we should also find some of the extra labour that we need for many other desirable projects which are diverted at present because it is said that the manpower situation is fully stretched. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider these matters and see what action he can take from his Department in order to assist their solution.

3.29 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee): The hon. Gentleman opened his remarks with the phrase "labour has ceased to be mobile in the way it used to be." I would only say, "Thank heaven for that." As far as we are concerned, one of our major objectives when we took office in 1945 was to see to it that labour did cease to

be mobile for the reason that it was mobile in the years before the war.
The hon. Gentleman told us that the unions—and he referred to the A.E.U.—would not accept adults. He mentioned one rule of the A.E.U. which, he said, would not permit men over 40 to become members. He is quite wrong in his interpretation of what that means. The A.E.U. admit adults into many of the sections of the union. They do not admit adults over 40 into the skilled sections, and that goes for people who may have been members of the union for 20 years. They have to transfer to the skilled sections before they are 40, but there is no bar to being a member of the union itself.
Upgrading is not something which suddenly came into being during the war; it has taken place as long as there has been an engineering industry. The hon. Gentleman said that dilution is causing a lot of trouble. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that dilution helped us to win the war to an appreciable degree. Many thousands of people now permanently employed in the engineering industry as skilled men could never have obtained employment in that industry had is not been for the dilution agreements, which stood us in such excellent stead during the war period and have done so since. I agree that mobility of labour is an essential prerequisite of any permanent state of full employment.

Mr. Bell: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of dilutees, will he not agree that those people he described as permanent employees in the engineering industry are in a deferred category and are still not established?

Mr. Lee: Theoretically, that may be so, but so far as we can see into the future there is no conceivable period in which there will be a need to ask dilutees to leave the industry.
On the question of mobility, I think the hon. Gentleman is taking far too pessimistic a view. When we find that there are fewer than 200,000 people unemployed in Britain at the present time,.9 per cent. of the working population, I think the hon. Member will agree that a considerable mobility of labour has already been achieved. A few years ago, prior to the time when we started our schemes in the development areas to bring


work to the people who previously had suffered mass unemployment, it would have been impossible to achieve such a low figure of unemployment.
The success which has been achieved in taking work to the people who needed it, and in getting people who need work to go where the work is, has been astunding. The Distribution of Industry Act, under which so much has been done in the development areas, has accomplished far more in helping to keep labour mobile than the hon. Gentleman thinks.
So far as my Department are concerned, we assist financially small numbers of key men to go into the development areas to train
"green" labour or to set up new industries. The employment exchanges also circulate lists of vacancies difficult to fill in the localities where they occur to other districts where we know that labour is available, and in approved cases we pay the fares of workers who are transferred to other districts. In some cases, we pay lodging allowances to their families when they have to take their families along with them. The Government training schemes referred to by the hon. Gentleman help to fit many workers to be mobile, in the sense of not having to stay in one industry and be out of work, and of training them to start again in some different industry.
The hon. Gentleman repeated what many of his hon. Gentlemen said yesterday on the question of trade unions and their attitude towards these vexed questions. It has been said before that the trade unions are indulging in all kinds of restrictive practices. I absolutely deny that. One hon. Gentleman yesterday talked about a 10 per cent. increase in production if trade unions would lift their restrictive practices. I can never find any hon. Gentleman who will give the slightest information on what he bases such conclusions. Only a few months ago in the House we had a discussion on the restoration of pre-war trade practices. The fact is that there is not a single trade union in Britain which has ever asked for the restoration of its pre-war trade practices. Every one agreed that they would not ask for those practices to be restored.
It is unfair at a time when the trade unions are doing so much to assist the

country by the manner in which they accepted dilution after the war and the way in which they have agreed not to ask for the restoration of their pre-war trade practices, all of which is reflected in the figures of increased production, of which everyone is so proud, that we should have repeatedly stated these allegations that in some way trade unions are indulging in restrictive practices.
I know that one can pinpoint instances in certain localities; but they are the exceptions which prove the rule. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not serve the country well when they antagonise trade union leaders, who are doing excellent work in difficult conditions, by asserting that we are suffering from the fact that trade unions are carrying on restrictive practices. I agree that there is much to be done. Neither my right hon. Friend nor myself is complacent about this. We recognise that this is not the time when people in responsible positions can tell the Government or industry what they will not do. The time has come when the background and history in which that antagonism grew up has to be forgotten and there has to be an approach to the problems which face us.
I wish the hon. Gentleman could come and attend some of the N.J.C. meetings and hear the leaders of industry and the trade unions discussing with my right hon. Friend and myself how to get over our difficulties. He would get a new conception of the spirit which animates industry. We can only get co-operation in the great problems which lay before us if hon. Gentlemen instead of denigrating the efforts which industry makes and continuing to make statements which are not borne out in fact, would understand the revolution in thought which has animated the trade unions.

Mr. Bell: I do not think I said anything about denigrating the spirit of cooperation with the trade unions. I thought I spoke rather to the contrary. It may be that the hon. Gentleman was attacking someone for something else that had been said. I do not think he was dealing with anything that I mentioned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes to Four o'Clock a.m.